Dahu Yadav @ Dahu Mahto @ Dau Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.44596 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -98 Year- 2018 Thana -FATEHPUR District- GAYA ======================================================

1. DAHU YADAV @ DAHU MAHTO @ DAU MAHTO Son of Bandhu Mahto resident of Village - Telni, P.S. - Fatehpur, District - Gaya. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shyam Kumar Singh, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 04-09-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Fatehpur P.S. Case No. 98 of 2018 registered for offences punishable under Sections 366 (A)/34 of the IPC. Allegation against the petitioner, who happens to be father of one Umesh Yadav, is of kidnapping the minor daughter of the informant.

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case and main allegation is against the son of the petitioner and petitioner has been roped in this case only on the basis of suspicion and the petitioner is in custody since 23.04.2018.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.44596 of 2018 (4) dt.04-09-2018 2/2 Heard learned A.P.P, who opposes the prayer for bail.

Having heard both sides and in view of the facts and circumstances, as stated above, let the petitioner, above named, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- ( Rupees Twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, X, Gaya in connection with Fatehpur P.S.Case No. 98 of 2018, subject to the following conditions:- i) One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be a local person having sufficient immovable property within the jurisdiction of the concerned Court. ii) The petitioner will not induce any witness or tamper with the evidence.

iii) It is made clear that if petitioner found involved in any of the like offences, in future, prosecution is free to move for cancellation of his bail bonds (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) Sudha/- U T