Vijay Kumar Arya v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8941 of 2017 (4) dt.23-03-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.8941 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -7 Year- 1996 Thana -TEKARI District- GAYA ====================================================== Vijay Kumar Arya, Son of Late Ram Yatan Yadav, Resident of village - Karma, P.S. Konch, Distt. - Gaya .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Chandrasen Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 23-03-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner is accused in connection with Tekari P.S. Case No. 07 of 1996 (S. Trial No. 129 of 2016), registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 307, 323, 324, 326, 333, 186, 380, 436, 427, 302, 201 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, Section 3/5 of the Explosive Substance Act and Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the occurrence is said to be of the year 1996, in which, the petitioner was not named in the F.I.R., but his name has come in the supervision note of Superintendent of Police, Gaya, as detailed in paragraph 120 of the case diary, except that there is nothing

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8941 of 2017 (4) dt.23-03-2017 against the petitioner showing his involvement in the present case. It is further submitted that petitioner is accused in 10 other cases, due to that reason, he has been remanded in the present case and in the present case, petitioner is in custody since 21.07.2015. Having regard to the facts and the circumstances of the case, the petitioner above named, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Additional District and Sessions Judge-V, Gaya, in connection with Tekari P.S. Case No. 07 of 1996 (S. Tr. No. 129 of 2016).

Out of two sureties, one surety must be the close relative of the petitioner and further the petitioner shall remain present on each and every date during the course of the trial in the court below. If the petitioner fails to remain present on two consecutive dates during the course of the trial without any reasonable cause being shown, the court concerned would be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of his bail bonds.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) Bhardwaj/- U T