Patna High CourtCR. MISC./65712/2018disposed

Prem Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2018-10-30Mr. Justice S. Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.65712 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-297 Year-2018 Thana- TURKAULIYA District- East Champaran ====================================================== Prem Kumar Son of late Kapildeo Prasad Resident of Village-Mahmud Nagar, P.S. Muffasil Motihari, District- East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sri Rajkishore Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL ORDER 30-10-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner, who is in custody, seeks bail in connection with Turkauliya P.S. Case No. 297 of 2018 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 457, 380, 411 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegation against the petitioner is of committing theft in the house of Vijay Singh where the informant resides on rent.

Considering the nature of allegation against petitioner, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly the prayer for bail is rejected at this stage. However, after six months of custody petitioner

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.65712 of 2018(2) dt.30-10-2018 2/2 would be enlarge on bail by the court below itself on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Champaran at Motihari, in connection with Turkauliya P.S. Case No. 297 of 2018 subject to the conditions that:-

(1) Bailors should be local having sufficient immovable property within the jurisdiction of the court concerned.

(2) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be represented on each and every date fixed by the court.

(3) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses of the case, in that case, prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail of the petitioner.

(S. Kumar, J) veena/- U T