Rajendra Yadav v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.17048 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -26 Year- 2017 Thana -RUPAULI District- PURNIA ====================================================== Rajendra Yadav, S/o Chhatri Yadav, R/o Village- Maini Yadav Tola, P.S.- Rupavli, District- Purnea.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Maheshwar Paswan, S/o Late Kallar Paswan, R/o Village- Maini Yadav Tola, P.S.- Rupavli, District- Purnea.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Satyadev Prasad Singh Yadav For the State : Mr. Matloob Rab, A.P.P ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 03-05-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Rupauli P.S. Case No. 26 of 2017 registered for the offences punishable under sections 406, 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. Allegedly, the petitioner took Rs. 70,000/- from the informant to provide job in military service but no job was provided and the petitioner did not refund the money. Submission is false implication that prosecution story appears not probable and reliable. The petitioner is suffering in custody since 27.02.2017. The petitioner is farmer having no

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17048 of 2017 (2) dt.03-05-2017 2/2 criminal antecedent. The prosecution suffers from principle of paridelicto.

The learned A.P.P. submits that the petitioner has taken Rs. 70,000/- for providing job.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on execution of bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned C.J.M., Purnea, in connection with Rupauli P.S. Case No. 26 of 2017, subject to the conditions that one of the bailors must be a near relative and another having sufficient immovable property within the territorial jurisdiction of the court concerned and the petitioner shall remain present on each and every date during trial and the default on two consecutive dates on his part without any reason shall disentitle the petitioner from privilege of bail.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) Ravi/- U T