Patna High CourtCR. MISC./60190/2018bail granted

Sumit Kumar @ Giltu @ Sumit @ Gittu @ Sunil v. The State Of Bihar

2018-10-09Mr. Justice S. Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.60190 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -74 Year- 2018 Thana -HATHUA District- GOPALGANJ ====================================================== Sumit Kumar @ Giltu @ Sumit @ Gittu @ Sunil S/o Ashok Kumar @ Ashok Prasad Gupta, R/o Vill.- Naya Bazar, P.S.- Hathua, DistrictGopalganj. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Makardhwaj Upadhyay, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar -1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL ORDER 09-10-2018 Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

Petitioner seeks bail in Hathua P.S. Case No. 74/2018, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 308, 379, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Allegation against the petitioner is inflicting Farsa blow on the head of the husband of informant.

It has been submitted that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Petitioner and Informant are agnates. There is land dispute.

Petitioner has no criminal antecedent. He is in custody since 24.07.2018.

Considering the facts aforesaid, the petitioner above-

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.60190 of 2018 (2) dt.09-10-2018 2/2 named, is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj in connection with Hathua P.S. Case No. 74/2018, subject to the 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 bonds.

(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) Vinita/- U T