Vikash Kumar Verma @ Dabloo v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.32010 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -340 Year- 2014 Thana -AURANGABAD TOWN DistrictAURANGABAD ====================================================== Vikash Kumar Verma @ Dabloo Son of Pradeep Mehta, Resident of Village- Telhara, P.S.- Amba , District- Aurangabad. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bindeshwar Prasad Singh, Adv For the Opposite Party/s : APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 19-08-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner is in custody since 05.01.2017 in connection with Aurangabad (T) P.S. Case No. 340 of 2014 for the alleged offences under Sections 302, 201 of the Indian Penal Code and subsequently added Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated on mere suspicion and on the extra judicial confessional statement of co-accused Raj Kumar Singh @ Pukar Mehta, the latter having been granted bail by this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 11572 of 2016. The petitioner claims clean antecedents.
4. A perusal of para 7 of the case diary reveals that the wife of the deceased has recorded her statement before the police in which she has laid suspicion on four persons other than the petitioner.
5. Be that as it may, 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
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.32010 of 2017 (3) dt.19-08-2017 thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned A.D.J-VII, Aurangabad in connection with Aurangabad (T) P.S. Case No. 340 of 2014 on 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 co-operate 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.
(iv) 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. (Vikash Jain, J) Chandran/BT U T