Manikant Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.38411 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -56 Year- 2015 Thana -BEGUSARAI GRP CASE DistrictBEGUSARAI ====================================================== Manikant Kumar, Son of Umesh Paswan, Resident of Village- Paharchak, P.S.- Muffasil, District- Begusarai.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ansul, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Sri Parmanand Prasad (APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 04-10-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel representing the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Barauni Railway P.S Case No. 56 of 2015 registered for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner is not named in the F.I.R., during investigation his name transpired and the stolen Laptop was recovered from the room of the petitioner.

Submission is of false implication and that the petitioner is in custody since 19.02.2016, nothing has been recovered from his conscious possession, the house is joint family property and for that the petitioner cannot be held responsible. The petitioner by remaining in custody has been sufficiently

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38411 of 2016 (2) dt.04-10-2016 2/2 penalized, chargesheet has already been submitted and there is no chance of tampering with the prosecution evidence. The learned A.P.P. fairly submits that the petitioner has remained in custody for more than six months. In the facts and circumstances stated above, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on execution of bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Railway Judicial Magistrate, Barauni, District- Begusarai, in connection with Barauni Railway P.S. Case No. 56 of 2015, 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.) Rajiv/- U T