Md. Parvej @ Md. Parvej Alam v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.16593 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -394 Year- 2016 Thana -MOTIHARI TOWN DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN (MOTIHARI) ====================================================== Md. Parvej @ Md. Parvej Alam, son of Sagir Akhtar @ Md. Sagir Akhtar, resident of village Pipra Station, Ward No. 5, P.S. Pipra, District East Champaran .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Vibhakar Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party: APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 04-04-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is in custody since 27.07.2016 in connection with Trial No. 578 of 2016 arising out of Motihari Town P.S. Case No. 394 of 2016 for the offences alleged under Section 386 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated on mere suspicion. The Mobile No. 7274883080 from which ransom call was made stands in the name of wife of Dilip Kumar Shrivastava and not in the petitioner's name. The petitioner's name has surfaced merely on the statement of Arya Shrivastava and save and except this, there is no other material to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence.

4. Be that as it may, having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioner above named be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VII, Motihari in connection with Trial No. 578 of 2016 arising out of Motihari Town

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16593 of 2017 (2) dt.04-04-2017 2/2 P.S. Case No. 394 of 2016 with the following conditions: (i) That one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioner.

(ii) That the petitioner shall not indulge in any similar offence till conclusion of the trial.

(iii) That the petitioner shall remain physically present in court on each and every date during trial and in the event of failure on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be liable to be cancelled by the learned Court concerned. (iv) The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation, if not already concluded, and make himself available as and when so required and in case of failure, the State shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

(Vikash Jain, J) B.T/Chandran U T