Manish Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.67963 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-253 Year-2018 Thana- BIKRAMGANJ District- Rohtas ====================================================== Manish Kumar son of Sunil Chaudhary, Resident of Village- Simari, P.S.- Dawath, District- Rohtas.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Nirbhay Prashant, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Manoj Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL ORDER 27-11-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner, who is in custody, seeks bail in connection with Bikramganj P.S. Case No. 253 of 2018 registered for the offence punishable under Section 366-A of the Indian Penal Code.

Informant is the father of victim, who has alleged that his daughter aged 17 years has not returned to house after she went to Inter College. It has been further alleged that he had a talk on mobile with his daughter in the evening and she told that she will be coming within one hour but she never returned. The informant has raised suspicion against Rajnish Kumar who was found talking to his daughter on mobile on several occasion. He has also raised suspicion against the petitioner,

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.67963 of 2018(2) dt.27-11-2018 2/2 except suspicion there is nothing against petitioner. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he is in custody since 08.08.2018.

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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram, in connection with Bikramganj P.S. Case No. 253 of 2018 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 properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and his absence on two consecutive dates without proper and sufficient reason the trial court will be at liberty to cancel his bail bond.

(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