Purushottam Kumar @ Purushottam Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.68938 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-190 Year-2016 Thana- KISHUNPUR District- Supaul ====================================================== Purushottam Kumar @ Purushottam Yadav Son of Sri Yogendra Yadav Resident of Village-Nawab Khan, P.S.-Kishanpur District-Supaul. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pramod Mishra For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL ORDER 05-12-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner, who is in custody, seeks bail in connection with Kishanpur P.S. Case No. 190 of 2016 registered for the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegation against petitioner is of snatching cash of Rs. 1900/-, mobile phone, ATM card and other articles from the informant.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is not named in the FIR and has been implicated in this case only on suspicion. It has been further submitted that occurrence took place on 07.09.2016 and FIR was lodged on 09.09.2016 without any explanation of such delay. Nothing has been

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.68938 of 2018(2) dt.05-12-2018 2/2 recovered from the possession of petitioner and has not been put on T.I.P. Petitioner is in custody since 25.08.2018. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioner named above be released on bail upon 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, Supaul, in connection with Kishanpur P.S. Case No. 190 of 2016 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 properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and his absence on two consecutive dates without proper and sufficient reason the trial court will be at liberty to cancel his bail bond.

(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