Patna High CourtCR. MISC./1884/2016bail granted

Sajjad Sheikh @ Naushad @ Md.Naushad v. The State Of Bihar

2016-03-04Mr. Justice Rajendra Kumar Mishra2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.1884 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -458 Year- 2015 Thana -SIKARPUR DistrictWESTCHAMPARAN(BETTIAH) ====================================================== Sajjad Sheikh @ Naushad @ Md. Naushad, son of Late Aliman, Resident of village - Mahuawa, P.S. -Shikarpur, District - West Champaran. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma For the Opposite Party : Mr. Sadanand Paswan (Spl.App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 11-03-2016 This case has been listed under the heading "To Be Mentioned" at the instance of the Court.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner, namely, Sajjad Sheikh @ Naushad @ Md. Naushad vide order dated 04.03.2016 was allowed bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah in connection with Shikarpur P.S. Case No. 458 of 2015 with the condition that out of two sureties, one surety must be the parents of the petitioner, who will file an affidavit showing his relation with the petitioner and further the petitioner shall remain present on each and every date during the course of the trial in the court below. If the petitioner fails to remain present on two consecutive dates during

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.1884 of 2016 (4) dt.11-03-2016 2/2 the course of the trial without any reasonable cause being shown, the Court concerned would be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of his bail bonds. Further submission is that since the parents of the petitioner are not alive and, as such, one of the conditions that "out of the two sureties, one surety must be the parents of the petitioner", is required to be modified.

In that view of the matter, in the order dated 04.03.2016, one of the conditions that "out of the two sureties, one surety must be the parents of the petitioner", is modified to the extent that "out of the two sureties, one must be close relative of the petitioner". The order dated 04.03.2016 is modified to the above extent only.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) manish/- U T