Sakhua @ Lulha @ Lulla @ Md.Sakhua v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.51965 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -593 Year- 2010 Thana -LAKHISARAI District- LAKHISARAI ======================================================

1. SAKHUA @ LULHA @ LULLA @ MD.SAKHUA Son of Late Fakku Miyan, Resident of village - Oraiya, P.S. + District - Lakhisarai .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Smt Sangeeta Sharma ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL ORDER 15-12-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

Petitioner is languishing in custody since 09.09.2015 in connection with Lakhisarai P.S. Case No. 593/2010, corresponding to S.Tr. No. 16/2016 for offences punishable under Sections 364(A) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution case, as lodged by the informant, is that the informant's son was returning from the market and consumed liquor with the petitioner and other co-accused. Thereafter, he could not be traced. Subsequently, the informant received telephonic call from the mobile of other co-accused Nehru Yadav to pay ransom. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case only on the basis of suspicion. He has no criminal history. It is further

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.51965 of 2016 (2) dt.15-12-2016 2/2 submitted that charge-sheet has already been submitted against him and trial is going on and thus, there is no chance of tampering with the prosecution evidence. It has further been submitted that other coaccused Nehru Yadav has since been granted the privilege of bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 43411/2011 on 14.03.2012.

However, learned APP for the State submits that the petitioner is named in the FIR, hence, opposes the prayer for bail. Be that as it may, considering the facts aforesaid, let petitioner, above named, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional District Judge III, Lakhisarai, in connection with Lakhisarai P.S. Case No. 593/2010, corresponding to S.Tr. No. 16/2016, subject to the condition that the petitioner will remain physically present in the court below on each and every date during trial and in the event of failure on the part of the petitioner to be present on two consecutive dates without assigning any reason will be liable for cancellation of his bail bond and shall be taken into custody. (Nilu Agrawal, J.) Rakhi U T