Vinay Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.65755 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-342 Year-2018 Thana- SHERGHATI District- Gaya ====================================================== Vinay Kumar, Son of Bilash Yadav, Resident of Village- Tetaria, Police Station- Sherghati, District- Gaya.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Binod Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sri Mukeshwar Dayal ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL ORDER 19-11-2018 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioner seeks bail in Sherghati P.S. Case No. 342 of 2018 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 384, 386/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Informant in his written complaint has stated that two persons came on motorcycle and snatched his mobile and made demand of Rs. 50,000/- from his Manager on the brick kiln. He has further alleged that this petitioner and one Ramdular Paswan came to collect the money and the Manager informed the Informant who is owner of the brick kiln.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case on suspicion. Similarly, situated co-accused person has been granted bail by a co-ordinate bench of this Court vide order

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.65755 of 2018(2) dt.19-11-2018 2/2 dated 01.11.2018 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 65217 of 2018. Petitioner is in custody since 22.06.2018.

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/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sherghati, Gaya, in connection with Sherghati P.S. Case No. 342 of 2018, with following 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 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) ranjan/- U