Indradev Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.68276 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-190 Year-2016 Thana- KISHUNPUR District- Supaul ====================================================== Indradev Yadav, S/o Mohan Yadav, R/o Village- Nado, P.S.- Saur Bazar, District- Saharsa.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Arun For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Smt. Anita Kumari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL ORDER 22-11-2018 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.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that for the same incident two cases has been registered by the police. Earlier Saur Bazar P.S. Case No. 372/16 was instituted for recovery of looted motorcycle from the possession of petitioner in which petitioner has already been granted bail and for the same occurrence case has been registered under Section 392 giving rise to Kishanpur P.S. Case No. 190/16. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.68276 of 2018(2) dt.22-11-2018 2/2 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 C.J.M., 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