Biru Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.43497 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-272 Year-2020 Thana- RANIYATALAB District- Patna ====================================================== BIRU KUMAR S/o Late Sanjay Singh R/o Village Arap, P.S. Bikram, District - Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Patanjali Rishi For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Satyendra Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER 01-02-2022 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 25.03.2021, seeks regular bail in connection with Rani Talab P.S. Case No. 272 of 2020, for the offence punishable under Sections 456, 504 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 16.12.2020, when the informant was at his house, three persons came there and asked about his son namely Manoj and started abusing and also threatened to kill his son. On protest, one person namely Anand Singh fired upon the informant which
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43497 of 2021(2) dt.01-02-2022 2/3 injured his leg. It is further alleged that two other persons namely, Dibyanshu Kumar and Manish Kumar had come to his house in search of his son.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that the name of the petitioner surfaced in this case on the basis of confessional statement of one co-accused Dibyanshu in police custody, which has no evidetiary value in the eye of law. He further submits that nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. He further submits that other co-accused has already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 25.01.2022 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 42669 of 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 a habitual offender as such he does not deserve to be released on bail.
Considering the above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case, 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 Addl. Chief Judicial
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43497 of 2021(2) dt.01-02-2022 3/3 Magistrate-II, Danapur, Patna in connection with Rani Talab P.S. Case No. 272 of 2020, subject to the following conditions:-
(1) Bailors should be local having sufficient 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