Patna High CourtCR. MISC./38292/2016bail granted

Sumit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2016-09-30Mr. Justice Jitendra Mohan Sharma2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38292 of 2016 (2) dt.30-09-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.38292 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -179 Year- 2015 Thana -MINAPUR District- MUZAFFARPUR ======================================================

1. Sumit Kumar son of Sudhir Kumar Singh Resident of Village-Ahiyapur in Front of Bazar Samiti, Police Station-Ahiytapur, District-Muzaffarpur .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satya Prakash For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Smt. Meena Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 30-09-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Minapur P.S. Case No. 179 of 2015 registered for the offence punishable under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioner is not named in the FIR, his name transpired during investigation in the confessional statement of co-accused Rahul Kumar and thereafter, the petitioner was apprehended and he is in custody since 25.07.2016 but he has not been put on test identification parade which is evident from the impugned order itself and there is no recovery from the petitioner. Besides confessional statement of co-accused there is nothing against the petitioner.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, the petitioner

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38292 of 2016 (2) dt.30-09-2016 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur in connection with Minapur P.S. Case No. 179 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) avin/- U T