Md. Saiyad v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36271 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-211 Year-2016 Thana- JALE DistrictDarbhanga ====================================================== MD. SAIYAD, aged 58 years, male, Son of late Amirul Haque @ Zamirul Haque Resident of Village - Belpakauna , P.S.- Katra, Dist.- Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Virendra Kumar, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party:

APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 11-06-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is in custody since 28.10.2018 in connection with Sessions Trial No. 118 of 2019 arising out of Jalley P.S. Case No. 211 of 2016 for the offences alleged under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated on mere suspicion, except which there is no objective material to connect the petitioner with the alleged occurrence. The thrust of accusation is against co-accused Md. Arman with whom the deceased was last seen. The said co-accused md. Arman has been granted bail by this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 65581 of 2018. The petitioner claims clean antecedents.

4. Be that as it may, let the petitioner above named be

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36271 of 2019(2) dt.11-06-2019 2/2 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 IXth Additional Sessions Judge, Darbhanga, in connection with Jalley P.S. Case No. 211 of 2016, on 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 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. (iv) 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.

(Vikash Jain, J) Ibrar//- U T