Prince @ Lal Badshah v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39285 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-454 Year-2020 Thana- HILSA District- Nalanda ====================================================== PRINCE @ LAL BADSHAH S/O PRAMOD SINGH R/O VILLAGEFATEHPUR, P.S-DIDARGANJ, DISTRICT-PATNA. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rajiva Ranjan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Binod Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER 22-01-2022 Heard the parties through video conferencing. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

Let the defect(s) be removed within two weeks of the complete start of the physical Court in normal course. The petitioner, who is in custody since 20.02.2021, seeks regular bail in connection with Hilsa P.S. Case No. 454 of 2020, for the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that three accused persons snatched the motorcycle of the informant bearing registration No. BR-01ET-4136, on the point of pistol, while he was going to purchase sweet. The informant has claimed to identify the accused persons on seeing them again. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39285 of 2021(2) dt.22-01-2022 2/3 petitioner submits that no T.I.P has been conducted to identify the petitioner. He further submits that the name of petitioner has surfaced in this case on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused Raj @ Chhote before the Police. He further submits that when the incident took place, the petitioner was in custody in connection with Shajhapur P.S. Case No. 88 of 2020. The petitioner is in custody since 20.02.2021.

Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. He further submits that petitioner is involved in other criminal cases for the same office under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code as such he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.

Considering the above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case and there is no allegation of tampering of evidence or influencing the witnesses and trial is not likely to be completed in near future due to pandemic of Covid-19, the petitioner, above named, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned A.C.J.M, Hilsa in connection with Hilsa P.S. Case No. 454 of 2020, subject to the following conditions:-

(1) Bailors should be local having sufficient

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39285 of 2021(2) dt.22-01-2022 3/3 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.

(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.

(4) If the petitioner is found involved in similar nature of offence, after his release on bail, the trial Court shall take steps to cancel his bail bonds.

(Purnendu Singh, J) manish/- U T