Anil Kumar Kushwaha v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13152 of 2017 (2) dt.29-03-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.13152 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -170 Year- 2016 Thana -LAURIYA DistrictWESTCHAMPARAN(BETTIAH) ====================================================== Anil Kumar Kushwaha, son of Rajendra Mahto, Resident of VillagePadari Sikta, Police Station- Lauriya, District- West Champaran. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance:

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kumar No.-7, Advocate For the Opposite Party : APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 29-03-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is in custody since 09.10.2016 in connection with Lauriya P.S.Case No. 170 of 2016 for the alleged offences under Sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR is against unknown five persons.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated on mere suspicion and on extra judicial confessional statement of co-accused Bablu Kumar Dubey who named the petitioner along with Sanjeet Sharma, the latter having already been granted bail by this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 54613 of 2016. It is submitted that no recovery has been made from the possession of the petitioner and he has not been put on T.I. parade for

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13152 of 2017 (2) dt.29-03-2017 identification.

4. Having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioner above named be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned 1st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah, West Chamaparan in connection with Lauriya P.S. Case No. 170 of 2016 on the following conditions - (i) That one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioner.

(ii) That the petitioner shall not indulge in any similar offence till conclusion of the trial.

(iii)That the petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation, if not already concluded, and make himself available as and when so required and in case of failure, the State shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

(iv) That the petitioner shall remain physically present in court on each and every date during trial and in the event of failure on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be liable to be cancelled by the learned Court concerned. (Vikash Jain, J) Chandran/BT U T