Madhav Mrinal @ Badal Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.21389 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -979 Year- 2015 Thana -SAHARSA District- SAHARSA ======================================================

1. Madhav Mrinal @ Badal Yadav, Son of Murlidhar Yadav, Resident of village- Narayanpur, P.S.- Jankinagar, District- Purnea. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sangeeta Sharma(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 15-07-2016 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned A.P.P for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in a case for the offence punishable under section 392 of the I.P.C Allegedly, three miscreants on two motorcycles came and got stopped the informant and thereafter snatched Rupees 7080 thousand and fled away. During investigation name of the petitioner transpires that he was seen moving near the place of occurrence and further the petitioner confessed his guilt and mobile and cash of Rs. 2,000/- were recovered. Submission is of false implication and that the petitioner is in custody since 05.12.2015 but he has not been put on the test identification parade, the recovered mobile and cash

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21389 of 2016 (3) dt.15-07-2016 2/2 were of the petitioner and the police got implicated him without any legal and tangible material.

The learned A.P.P. opposes prayer for bail by submitting that the petitioner has got criminal antecedent as he is involved in eight more cases.

In the facts and circumstances as stated above, considering detention of the petitioner and further that co-accused Suraj Kumar @ Suraj Tanti has already been allowed bail vide Cr. Misc. No. 10747 of 2016 by another co-ordinate Bench of this Court and as such the petitioner is also directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of C.J.M. Saharsa in Saharsa P.S. Case No. 979 of 2015, 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) Abhay/- U T