Ramashish Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.43788 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -27 Year- 2014 Thana -GURARU District- GAYA ====================================================== Ramashish Yadav, Son of Narain Yadav, resident of village - Korap, P.S. Anti, District Gaya .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Lilawati Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Sri Abhay Kumar Roy (APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 15-12-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Guraru P.S Case No. 27 of 2014, registered for the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1-b)a, 26 and 35 of Arms Act.

The petitioner is not named in the First Information Report and his name transpired in the confessional statement of co-accused Rakesh Kumar @ Lulha .

Submission is of false implication and that except confessional statement and criminal antecedent of the petitioner there appears nothing against the petitioner and further Rakesh Kumar @ Lulha has already been allowed bail vide Cr. Misc. No.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43788 of 2016 (3) dt.15-12-2016 2/2 4186 of 2015 vide order dated 23.04.2015 by another co-ordinate Bench of this Court and, as such, the petitioner also deserves sympathetic consideration.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on execution of bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri Piyush Kuamr Srivastava, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gaya, in connection with Guraru P.S. Case No. 27 of 2014, subject to the conditions that one of the bailors must be a near relative and another having sufficient immovable property within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court concerned and the petitioner shall remain present on each and every date during trial and the default on two consecutive dates on his part without any reason shall disentitle the petitioner from privilege of bail.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J.) Rajiv/- U T