Rajesh Uraon And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.77027 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-262 Year-2018 Thana- ROHTAS District- Rohtas ======================================================

1. Rajesh Uraon, Son of Kishun Uraon @ Keshwar Uraon.

2. Kamlesh Uraon, son of Hari Uraon @ Hariya Uraon. Both are residents of Village- Barwadih (Kubba), P.S. Nauhatta, DistrictRohtas. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Arun Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Sri Bharat Bhushan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL ORDER 20-12-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

Petitioners, who are in custody, seek bail in connection with Rohtas P.S. Case No. 262 of 2018 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 386/395 of the Indian Penal Code and 17/18 U.A. Act and 17 C.L.A. Act. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that there is specific allegation of demand of levy against Chunchun Uraon and he also took Rs. 74,000/- cash, ornaments and mobile and fled away. Nothing has been recovered from petitioners. It has been further submitted that that occurrence took place on 19.09.2018 and FIR was lodged on 22.09.2018 without any explanation of such delay, which creates serious

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.77027 of 2018(2) dt.20-12-2018 2/2 doubt about the correctness of prosecution story. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he is in custody since 24.09.2018. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioners named above be released on bail upon furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned J.M. 1st Class, Dehri, in connection with Rohtas P.S. Case No. 262 of 2018 subject to the conditions that:-

(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 properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and their absence on two consecutive dates without proper and sufficient reason the trial court will be at liberty 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) veena/- U T