Nasir Ansari @ Md.Nasir Ansari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.2193 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -89 Year- 2016 Thana -SAMASTIPUR GRP CASE DistrictSAMASTIPUR ======================================================

1. Nasir Ansari @ Md.Nasir Ansari, Son of Abdul Ansari Resident of Village Mohan Barahi, Tola Phulwaria, P.S. Purnahiya, District Sheohar. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Alok Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Mustaque Alam (APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 28-01-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Darbhanga (Sitamarhi) P.S Case No. 89 of 2016 registered for the offence punishable under Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 16 of the Bounded Child Labour Abolition Act, 1976. Allegedly, the petitioner and two co-accused were apprehended with five children, who were being taken away to Ludhiyana for doing labour.

Submission is of false implication and the petitioner is aged about 18 yeas, he was talking with the children and then he has been apprehended in this case. He has got no concerned with those children and without any fault the petitioner is suffering in

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2193 of 2017 (2) dt.28-01-2017 2/2 custody since 25.10.2016.

Learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer of bail.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering the detention of the petitioner and his age, now he is directed to be released on bail on execution of bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of Assistant Chief Judicial Magistrate (R), Samastipur, in connection with Darbhanga (Sitamarhi) P.S. Case No. 89 of 2016, subject to the conditions that one of the bailors must be a near relative and another having sufficient immovable property within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court concerned and the petitioner shall remain present on each and every date during trial and the default on two consecutive dates on his part without any reason shall disentitle the petitioner from privilege of bail.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J.) Rajiv/- U T