Chandrika Ram And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.29189 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -269 Year- 2014 Thana -MAJORGANJ District- SITAMARHI ======================================================

1. Chandrika Ram S/o Nagendra Ram

2. Nagendra Ram S/o Gaguni Ram

3. Ramesh Ram S/o Nagendra Ram Both R/o Village- Basaha, P.S.- Bajpatti, District- Sitamarhi.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dinesh Jha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Anil Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL ORDER 07-08-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

Petitioners are languishing in custody since 18.03.2017 in connection with Mejorganj P.S. Case No. 269 of 2014 for offences punishable under Sections 364, 365, 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution case, on the basis of Complaint Case No. 1157 of 2014 dated 26.06.2014 lodged which was later sent to the police for registering an F.I.R. under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. is that the petitioners took away the son of the informant for doing work in Delhi and from there, he disappeared.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that they are innocent, bear no criminal antecedent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. In fact on 08.06.2014 petitioner no. 1 has lodged a Sanha with Nabikarim Police Station, Delhi that the son of the informant was working with him. He submits that no overt act has been committed by the petitioner rather they have themselves searching for the victim boy. The victim boy who is 14 years old has disappeared on his own since 02.06.2014. He further submits that charge-sheet has already been submitted and there is no allegation of tampering with the prosecution witnesses by the petitioners. However, learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances and the materials on record, let petitioners, above named, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/-(Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi, in connection with Mejorganj P.S. Case No.269 of 2014, subject to the condition that one of the bailors would be a close relative of the petitioners having sufficient immovable property within the jurisdiction of the

concerned police station, who will file an affidavit stating their relationship with the petitioners and that petitioners will appear before the learned court below during trial as and when required and failure to appear on two consecutive dates without assigning any reason will entail cancellation of their bail bonds (Nilu Agrawal, J) sushma/- U T