Prakash Thakur v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.25043 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -689 Year- 2016 Thana -BANKA District- BANKA ====================================================== Prakash Thakur, son of Late Girija Thakur, resident of VillageChirouta, P.S. Belhar, District- Banka. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Jha, Advocate. For the Opposite Party : APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 01-07-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is in custody since 18.01.2017 in connection with Banka P.S. Case No. 689 of 2016 for the alleged offences under Sections 364/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated on mere suspicion and no specific accusation has been made against the petitioner. The so-called victim boy is said to have accompanied the co-accused Rupesh Thakur on 06.08.2016 with which the petitioner has no concern. Co-accused Manoj Thakur who was implicated in course of investigation has been granted bail in Cr. Misc. No. 9300 of 2017. Petitioner claims clean antecedents.

4. Be that as it may, having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioner above

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25043 of 2017 (3) dt.01-07-2017 2/2 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 A.D.J. IV, Banka in connection with Banka P.S. Case No. 689 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) Md. Ibrarul/- U T