Bechan Yadav @ Sandip Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28366 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-670 Year-2017 Thana- FORBESGANJ District- Araria ====================================================== Bechan Yadav @ Sandip Kumar, aged about 30 years (Male), Son of Kishundev Yadav, Resident of Village- Ward No. 15, Bhawanipur Uttar, P.S.- Bhawanipur, District- Supaul.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ramesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Satyendra Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 17-07-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Forbesganj (Simraha) P.S. Case No. 670 of 2017 registered under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and Section 395 of I.P.C. is not attracted against the petitioner. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that except confessional statement, there is nothing against the petitioner and no recovery has been affected. The petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. The other co-accused has been granted anticipatory bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. In the facts and circumstances of the case, let the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28366 of 2019(4) dt.17-07-2019 2/2 above named petitioner be released on bail, in the event of arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Araria in connection with Forbesganj (Simraha) P.S. Case No. 670 of 2017, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and further condition is that (i) one of the bailors must be a local person having sufficient immovable property within the jurisdiction of the concerned court and (ii) the petitioner will not induce any witness or tamper with the evidence and the petitioner shall co-operate in the investigation of the case and make himself available as and when required by the police, otherwise, the prosecution is free to move for cancellation of his bail bond.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) Nasimul/- U T