Mithilesh Paswan v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.43772 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-272 Year-2016 Thana- ARA NAGAR District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Mithilesh Paswan S/o Suresh Paswan, R/o Vill.- Kuberchak, Dhandiha, P.S.- Koilwar, District- Bhojpur at Ara.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Arbind Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Sri Narendra Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL ORDER 27-09-2018 Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
Petitioner seeks bail in Ara Town P.S. Case No. 272 of 2016 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 384 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.
Allegation against the petitioner is of demanding ransom of Rs. 50,00,000/- from the Informant. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the name of the petitioner has surfaced in this case on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused Vishal Kumar Singh and Krishna Kumar Singh. It has been further submitted that the petitioner is not named in the FIR. TIP of the petitioner has also not been conducted. Petitioner is in custody since 08.07.2016. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43772 of 2018(4) dt.27-09-2018 2/2 the case, let the petitioner named above be released on bail upon furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Ara, in connection with Ara Town P.S. Case No. 272 of 2016, with following conditions:-
(1) Bailors should be local having sufficient immovable property within the jurisdiction of the court concerned.
(2) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be present on each and every date fixed by the court and his absence on two consecutive dates without proper and reasonable reason will be sufficient to cancel his bail bond.
(3) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses of the case, in that case, prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail of the petitioner.
(S. Kumar, J) ranjan/- U