Rinku Pandey v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.1015 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -28 Year- 2016 Thana -AANTI District- GAYA ====================================================== Rinku Pandey, son of Sakaldip Pandey @ Sakaldip Mishra, resident of village Korap, P.S. Konch, District Gaya .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Umeshnand Pandit, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 08-02-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Anti P.S. Case No. 28 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 461 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is gotia of the informant and the allegation made against him is only on the basis of suspicion and nothing has come against him. It has further been submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court if anticipatory bail is granted to him Heard learned APP also.

Having heard both sides and considering the fact that only suspicion has been raised against the petitioner, let the petitioner, named above, in the event of his arrest or surrender in

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.1015 of 2017 (2) dt.08-02-2017 2/2 the court below within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya, in connection with Anti P.S.Case No. 28 of, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

This is subject to the further conditions that one of the bailors should be a local person having sufficient immoveable properties within the jurisdiction of the court concerned and further the petitioner shall co-operate in the investigation and make himself available before the police/court, as the case may be, as and when required and in the event of failure on his part to appear before the court on two consecutive dates, without showing any genuine reason, his bail bond shall be liable to be cancelled. (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) spal/- U