Karuna Nidhi v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.68125 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-353 Year-2012 Thana- ROHTAS COMPLAINT CASE DistrictRohtas ====================================================== Karuna Nidhi son of Rajendra Prasad @ Vinobajee Resident of VillageKeshopur, P.S. Telhara, District- Nalanda. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Rajiv Ranjan son of Sri Shivpujan Singh, Resident of Village- Salempur, P.S. Nokha, District- Rohtas.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pramod Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s :

Smt. Anita Kumari CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 26-11-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Complaint Case No. 353 of 2012 (Tr. No. 15 of 2018) instituted for the offence under Section(s) 406, 420 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this is a case of misuse of privilege of bail. From the impugned order, it appears that petitioner was on bail . The case was fixed for evidence before charge on 19.12.2017. The petitioner did not appear and his bail bond was

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.68125 of 2018(2) dt.26-11-2018 2/3 cancelled. He was declared absconder by order dated 12.4. 2018. Thereafter, petitioner voluntarily surrendered on 8.8.2018 and since then he is languishing in jail custody. This is a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 323 of the I.P.C.

This Court is of the view that petitioner has been sufficiently punished for the latches on his part Considering the aforesaid, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-(Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 1st, Rohtas at Sasaram in connection with Complaint Case No. 353 of 2012 (Tr. No. 15 of 2018), subject to the following conditions:- (i) Both the bailers shall be the close relative of the petitioner.

(ii) The petitioner shall be present on each and every date fixed by the Court and absence on two consecutive dates without valid reason will result in cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner.

(iii) If petitioner tamper with the evidence in the case, prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.68125 of 2018(2) dt.26-11-2018 3/3 bond of the petitioner.

(Sanjay Priya, J) shyambihari/- U T