Anurudh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.52651 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -94 Year- 2018 Thana -GOVINDPUR District- NAWADA ====================================================== Anurudh Kumar, Son of Dilip Kumar @ Dilip Yadav @ Darwari, resident of village- Jetsari, Police Station- Govindpur, District- Nawadah. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 2/ 30-08-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

Petitioner apprehends his arrest in Govindpur P.S. Case No.94 of 2018 instituted for the offence under Section(s) 304(B)/34 Indian Penal Code.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is Dewar (brother-in-law) of the deceased. He has clean antecedents.

There is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, prayer of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail is allowed. In the event of surrender/arrest of the petitioner, named above, within six weeks from today in connection with Govindpur P.S. Case No.94 of

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.52651 of 2018 (2) dt.30-08-2018 2/2 2018, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawadah, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr. P. C. with further conditions: (1) bailors should be local having sufficient immovable property within the jurisdiction of the court concerned, (2) petitioner shall cooperate in the trial and shall be present on each and every date fixed by the court and his absence on two consecutive dates without proper and reasonable reason will be liable to cancel his bail bond and (3) if 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.

(Sanjay Priya, J) JA/- Rohit Kr.

U T