Umesh Sharma v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.16037 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -26 Year- 2015 Thana -KANGALI DistrictWESTCHAMPARAN(BETTIAH) ====================================================== Umesh Sharma Son of Mohar Sharma , Resident of Village- Shugaha Bhawanipur, Police Station- Kangali, District- West Champaran, Bettiah. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sheo Jee Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Binod Kumar, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 26-04-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. representing the State.

The petitioner wants to renew his prayer for bail, which was earlier rejected vide order dated 21.06.2016 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 9836 of 2016, on the ground that the petitioner was given liberty to renew his prayer for bail after remaining further nine months in custody and the petitioner has remained further nine months in custody since the order dated 21.06.2016 and, as such, now the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration. Further, co-accused Shyam Sundar Sharma and Sanoj Sharma have also been allowed bail vide Cr. Misc. No. 7534 of 2017. In near future the trial is not likely to be concluded and there is no chance of tampering with the prosecution evidence. The learned A.P.P. fairly submits that Shyam Sundar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16037 of 2017 (2) dt.26-04-2017 2/2 Sharma and Sanoj Sharma have already been allowed bail. In the facts and circumstances as stated above, the petitioner above named is directed to be released on bail on execution of bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Champaran at Bettiah in connection with Kangali P.S. Case No. 26 of 2015, subject to the conditions that one of the bailors must be 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) Vats/- U T