Harilal Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.2164 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -32 Year- 2016 Thana -PAUTHU District- AURANGABAD ====================================================== Harilal Kumar Son of Butan Mistri @ Saheb Deyal Vishwakarma resident of village - Chaurahi, P.S. - Haspura, District - Aurangabad. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Leelawati Kumari For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Kanhaiya Kishore ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 25-01-2017 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in a case for the offences punishable under sections 326A and 307/34 of the I.P.C. and Sections 3⁄4 of the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, 1999.

At the very outset it is submitted that in this case the main allegation is against Singari Kuwar who has been allowed pre-arrest bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide Cr.Misc.No. 47934 of 2016 considering the delay in lodging the F.I.R. as the occurrence is of 7.6.2016 whereas the F.I.R. has been lodged on 12.6.2016 without any explanation. The police verified about the injury sustained by the son of the informant whereafter it

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2164 of 2017 (2) dt.25-01-2017 2/2 appears that the informant disclosed that by mistake the acid like substance was drunk by him and that within two days the injured was discharged on being found no serious injury. Learned APP opposes the prayer of bail.

In the facts and circumstances as stated above, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of C.J.M. Aurangabad in Pouthu P.S. Case No. 32 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) A.I./- U