Punnu Kumar @ Punnu Kumar Singh @ Keshaw v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.1952 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -290 Year- 2016 Thana -MUZAFFARPUR SADAR DistrictMUZAFFARPUR ====================================================== Punnu Kumar @ Punnu Kumar Singh @ Keshaw son of Sri Jitendra Singh, resident of village Katra, P.S. Katra, District Muzaffarpur .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Advocate For the Opposite Party: APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 16-03-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is in custody since 01.07.2016 in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No. 290 of 2016 for the offences alleged under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated merely on the basis of so-called self-confession before the police. There is no recovery of any incriminating articles from the petitioner's possession nor he has been identified in any test identification parade. Charge sheet has been submitted only under Section 395 of the IPC and not under the Arms Act. The petitioner was earlier arrested in Muzaffarpur Sadar P.S. Case No. 301 of 2016 and on the basis of his statement made in that case, he has been falsely implicated in three other cases including the present one.

4. 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur in connection with

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.1952 of 2017 (5) dt.16-03-2017 2/2 Sadar P.S. Case No. 290 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/Ibrar U T