Bachchu Sahni v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.9703 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -219 Year- 2016 Thana -NANHPUR District- SITAMARHI ====================================================== Bachchu Sahni, Son of Late Ram Bilas Sahni, Resident of VillageHanuman Nagar, P.S.- Sheohar, District- Sheohar. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.

For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER -------------- 10-03-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Nanpur P.S. Case No.219 of 2016 registered under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. during investigation, the name of the petitioner and two others surfaced in this case in the statement of the spy. Except that, there is nothing against the petitioner to connect him in the commission of the alleged offence. Further submission is that the similarly situated co-accused Ram Balak Sah has already been granted bail by a

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9703 of 2017 (2) dt.10-03-2017 2/2 Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.02.2017 passed in Criminal Misc. No.8920 of 2017. The petitioner is in custody since 08.11.2016. While the petitioner is accused in four other cases, as detailed in paragraph-3 to this application, but the petitioner is on bail in all that cases.

Having regard to the facts and the circumstances of the case, the petitioner, above named, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pupari at Sitamarhi, in connection with Nanpur P.S. Case No.219 of 2016. Out of the two sureties, one must be close relative of the petitioner, who will file an affidavit giving genealogy as to how he/she is related with the petitioner. The bailors will undertake to furnish information to the court about any change in the address of the petitioner. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) P.S./- U T