Laleshwar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.29812 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -18 Year- 2002 Thana -RAGHOPUR District- SUPAUL ====================================================== Laleshwar Yadav, S/o Bharati Yadav @ Bharthi Yadav, resident of Village- Fulkahi, P.S.- Raghopur, District- Supaul. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vivek Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Sri Asharaf Ansari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 11-07-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with S.Tr. No. 68 of 2003, arising out of Raghopur P.S. Case No. 18 of 2002 registered for the offence(s) punishable under section(s) 366A/120B of the Indian Penal Code The petitioner was on bail but as no pairvi was done on his behalf in the case since 19.04.2011 resulting on 07.05.2011 his bail bond was cancelled. Non-bailable warrant was issued therefore, process was issued and the petitioner has been declared absconder vide order dated 18.02.2016 and permanent warrant of arrest was issued. The petitioner has been arrested on 19.03.2017 and since then he is in custody.

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29812 of 2017 (2) dt.11-07-2017 2/2 that the petitioner remained present in the case since long. He was granted bail, vide order dated 13.01.2004, by this Court and he remained present in the case, but no progress was being done resulting the petitioner went outside for his livelihood. Petitioner's pairvikar left the parivi resulting bail bond of the petitioner was cancelled on 07.05.2011. The petitioner was not aware regarding the cancellation of his bail bond, there is no execution report and as such, the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration. The learned APP opposes the prayer of bail by submitting that the petitioner has remained absconding for six years and on the basis of permanent warrant of arrest he has been apprehended.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and accordingly, his such prayer stands rejected. However the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after remaining nine months in custody. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) Mahesh/- U T