Patna High CourtCR. MISC./67332/2018bail granted

Sachindra Pandey And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

2018-11-26Mr. Justice S. Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.67332 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -142 Year- 2018 Thana -GOPALPUR District- GOPALGANJ ======================================================

1. Sachindra Pandey Son of Sri Bachendra Pandey

2. Vijay Pandey Son of late Laljee Pandey Both are Residents of VillagePaharpur, P.S. Gopalpur, District- Gopalganj. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.

For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL ORDER 26-11-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

Petitioners seek bail in connection with Gopalpur P.S. Case No.142 of 2018 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 272, 273 of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegation is recovery of 388 liters of liquor. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that alleged liquor seized by police does not belong to petitioner. The vehicle was lying near the house of Yogendra Pandey in abandon condition.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, let all the petitioners named above be released on bail upon furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- each with two sureties of the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.67332 of 2018 (2) dt.26-11-2018 2/2 like amount each to the satisfaction of learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Gopalganj in connection with Gopalpur P.S. Case No.142 of 2018, with following conditions :-

(1) Bailors should be local having sufficient immovable property within the jurisdiction of the Court concerned.

(2) Petitioners shall co-operate in the trial and shall be present on each and every date fixed by the Court and their absence on two consecutive dates without proper and reasonable reason will be sufficient to cancel their bail bond.

(3) If the petitioners 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 petitioners.

(S. Kumar, J) Sanjeev/- U T