Vikram Rai @ Bittu Rai @ Vikram Ray @ Bittu Ray v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8939 of 2017 (2) dt.01-03-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.8939 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -642 Year- 2014 Thana -KHAZANIHAT District- PURNIA ====================================================== Vikram Rai @ Bittu Rai @ Vikram Ray @ Bittu Ray, Son of Shankar Rai, Resident of village - New Colony Rajni Chowk, P.S. K. Hat ( Sahayak ), District - Purnea .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bijendra Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Tapeshwar Sharma ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 01-03-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

The petitioner wants to renew his prayer of bail, which was earlier thrice rejected vide order dated 17.03.2015, 24.11.2015 and 07.09.2016 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 52403 of 2014, 35174 of 2015 and 36473 of 2016 respectively, on the ground that the petitioner is in custody since 23.08.2014 having no criminal antecedent, trial has not been concluded within the time given by this Court and the petitioner was given liberty to renew his prayer of bail. Only four prosecution witnesses have been examined out of 8 chargesheet witnesses and in near future the trial is not likely to be concluded. Recovery of other articles have no evidentiary value in the eye of law as in the first information report it is only mentioned that the miscreants took away Rs. 1,75,000/- and there is no mentioning regarding other articles. It is also submitted that similarly situated co-accused Mukesh Kumar has

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8939 of 2017 (2) dt.01-03-2017 been allowed bail vide order dated 15.02.2017 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 1875 of 2017.

Learned APP fairly submits that co-accused Mukesh Kumar has been allowed bail.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering the period of detention and further that the trial has not been concluded within the time given vide order dated 07.09.2016, 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 Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Purnea in S. T. No. 51 of 2015 arising out of K. Hat (Sahayak) P.S. Case No. 642 of 2014, 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) avin/- U T