Sonu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.12051 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -64 Year- 2016 Thana -UDAKISHANGANJ District- MADHEPURA ======================================================

1. Sonu Kumar, son of Sri Rameshwar Pandit, resident of Village- Beldaur, Ward No.17, P.S.- Beldaur, District- Khagaria. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Matloob Rab, (APP-34) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 28-03-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with UdaKishunganj P.S Case No. 64 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 395 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code. Allegedly, unknown criminals committed dacoity on road. During investigation one of the mobile phone was recovered from the co-accused Dilesh Sharma and the name of the petitioner transpires in the confessional statement of that co-accused, Dilesh Sharma has already been allowed bail by another co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide Cr. Misc. No. 42444 of 2016 and further Soman Mistri has also been allowed bail vide Cr. Misc. No. 49573 of 2016 and, as such, the petitioner also deserves sympathetic

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12051 of 2017 (2) dt.28-03-2017 2/2 consideration as nothing has been recovered from his possession, he has not been put on T.I.P. and he is in custody since 31.12.2016.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, the petitioner 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 learned S.D.J.M., UdaKishunganj, Madhepura, in connection with Uda-Kishunganj P.S. Case No. 64 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