Mukesh Kumar And ANR v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.33194 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -138 Year- 2016 Thana -AURANGABAD TOWN DistrictAURANGABAD ======================================================
1. Mukesh Kumar, Son of Ramyad Mistry @ Ramraj Mistry, resident of village Sugi, P.S. Dumariya, District Gaya, at present residing at Kalyanpur, P.S. Chainpur, District Daltonganj, Palamu (Jharkhand)
2. Rahul Kumar @ Sinku Kumar @ Rahul Kumar Sinku @ Sintu Kumar, Son of Sahdeo Ram, resident of village Balsora Kajri, P.S. Padwa, District Daltonganj (Palamau) .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kumar Uday Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Ashlam Ansari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 20-09-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners seek bail in a case instituted for the offences under Sections 363, 368 and 372 of the I.P.C. The allegation is that the accused persons including the petitioners have kidnapped the niece of the informant with intention to sale her.
It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners are in custody since 27.4.2016 and the charge sheet has been submitted in the present case. The petitioners have got no criminal antecedent. There is no allegation of tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioners. As per the F.I.R., the main allegation is against the co-accused Anil Kumar Singh, who
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.33194 of 2016 (4) dt.20-09-2016 2/2 is involved in the flash trade. The petitioners are suspected to be the associates of the said co-accused. The victim has been examined under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. She has not named the petitioners nor any other witnesses have alleged the involvement of the petitioners in the present case, only suspicion has been raised.
On behalf of the State, it is submitted that altogether fourteen persons are named in the F.I.R. along with the petitioners.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is directed that the petitioners above named be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-(Ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad in Aurangabad Town P.S. case No.138 of 2016.
(Sudhir Singh, J) Narendra/- U T