Sintu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.65021 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-298 Year-2017 Thana- SINGHESHWAR District- Madhepura ====================================================== Sintu Kumar Son of Satya Narain Yadav Resident of Village-Satokhar, P.S. Singheshwar,Distt.-Madhepura ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Dinesh Prasad Verma For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sri Rajendra Singh Shastriji ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL ORDER 05-11-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner, who is in custody, seeks bail in connection with Singheshwar P.S. Case No. 298 of 2017 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 461, 379, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Informant has alleged in the FIR that his brother Kishan Kumar who owned a mobile shop at Dhanyawad Chowk after taking dinner went to his shop in the night. When he did not return in the morning, informant went there and found his brother Kishan Kumar lying dead in a pool of blood. Informant raised suspicion against Bikash Mandal and Guddu Choudhary that they might have killed his brother.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.65021 of 2018(2) dt.05-11-2018 2/2 petitioner is not named in the FIR. His name has surfaced in this case on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused Vikash Kumar who has already been granted bail by this Hon'ble Court and other co-accused Nikesh Kumar has also been granted bail by this Hon'ble Court as contained in Annexure-2. Petitioner is in custody since 19.01.2018.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioner named above be released on bail upon furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned C.J.M., Madhepura, in connection with Singheshwar P.S. Case No. 298 of 2017 subject to the conditions that:-

(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 represented on each and every date fixed by the court.

(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) veena/- U T