Karan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.64809 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -157 Year- 2017 Thana -GOPALPUR DistrictWESTCHAMPARAN(BETTIAH) ======================================================

1. Karan Kumar, Son of Raj Kumar Patel, Resident of Village- Parbatiya Tola, Police Station- Bettiah Muffasil, District- West Champaran. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar No. 7, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s Mrs Veena Kumari Jaiwal, A.P.P.oma . ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 29-10-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Gopalpur, P.S. Case No. 157 of 2017, registered for offences punishable under Section 392 of Indian Penal Code. Allegation against the petitioner as per F.I.R. is that four persons including the petitioner intercepted the motorcycle of the informant and on the point of gun snatched the motorcycle, Rs. 2000/- and mobile.

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case and the petitioner is not named in F.I.R. and absolutely nothing against the petitioner and the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.64809 of 2018 (2) dt.29-10-2018 2/2 is in custody since 11.06.2018.

Heard learned A.P.P also.

Having heard both sides and in view of the facts and circumstances, as stated above, let the petitioners, above named, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- ( Rupees Twenty five thousand)each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah, West Champaran in connection with P.S. Case No. 157 of 2017, subject to the following conditions:- i) One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be a local person having sufficient immovable property within the jurisdiction of the concerned Court. ii) The petitioner will not induce any witness or tamper with the evidence.

iii) It is made clear that if petitioner found involved in any of the like offences, in future, prosecution is free to move for cancellation of his bail bonds. (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) Sudha/- U T