Kartik Sharma And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.66700 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -150 Year- 2016 Thana -SALAKHUA District- SAHARSA ======================================================

1. Kartik Sharma, Son of Rijhan Sharma, Resident of Village-Karua, O.P. Balwahat, P.S.-Bakhriyarpur, District-Saharsa.

2. Bharat Kumar, Son of Late Hari Ram Yadav, Resident of VillageMohaniya, P.S.-Simari Bakhiyarpur, District-Saharsa. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Nand Kishore Pd Mr. Ram Naresh Ray (APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL ORDER 26-11-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

Petitioners seek bail in connection with Salkhua P.S. Case No.150 of 2016 registered for the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

Informant has alleged while he was returning from bank, three unknown miscreants on motorcycle looted the cash money of Rs.2,54,000/-. The name of the petitioner has surfaced in this case only on the basis of confessional statement made by co-accused persons.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that except said statement, there is no other incriminating materials against the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.66700 of 2018 (2) dt.26-11-2018 2/2 petitioner. Nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner and they are in custody since 05.05.2018. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, let all the petitioners named above be released on bail upon furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned A.C.J.M.-IV, Saharsa in connection with Salkhua P.S. Case No.150 of 2016, with following conditions :-

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

(2) Petitioners shall co-operate in the trial and shall be present on each and every date fixed by the Court and their absence on two consecutive dates without proper and reasonable reason will be sufficient to cancel their bail bond.

(3) If the petitioners 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 petitioners.

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