Tej Prakash Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.26142 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -228 Year- 2013 Thana -KATEYA District- GOPALGANJ ====================================================== Tej Prakash Singh Son of Late Munshi Singh, Resident of Village:- Gulaura, P.S.- Gopalpur, District:- Gopalganj. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Indrajeet Bhushan For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Smt. Indu Bala Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 10-08-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

Petitioner is accused in connection with Kateya P.S. Case No. 228 of 2013 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 302 of the I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. In course of investigation, it has come in the confessional statement of Mukh Lal Singh, as detailed in paragraph-43 of the case diary, that this petitioner sold the tree of worth Rs. 196,000/- in which the deceased had also half share. Later on, only suspicion has been raised against the petitioner by witnesses Dwarika and Ritesh Kumar, whose statements have been recorded in paragraph nos. 91

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26142 of 2016 (3) dt.10-08-2016 2/2 and 92 of the case diary. Except suspicion, there is nothing against the petitioner. Further submission is that petitioner is accused in 15 other cases, as detailed in paragraph no.3 of the petition, but in all cases, he has been acquitted and in this case, petitioner is in custody since 14.04.2016.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, let the above named petitioner be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of C.J.M., Gopalganj in connection with Kateya P.S. Case No.228 of 2013 (G.R. No. 3991 of 2013). Out of two sureties, one surety must be the close relatives/parents of the petitioner, who will file an affidavit showing his relation with the petitioner and further the petitioner shall remain present on each and every date during the course of trial in the Court below. If the petitioner fails to remain present on two consecutive dates during the course of trial without any reasonable cause, the Court concerned would be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of his bail bonds. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) Shail/- U T