Pandit Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.35260 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -296 Year- 2016 Thana -PARWATTA District- KHAGARIA ======================================================
1. Pandit Yadav Son of Late Parmanand Yadav, R/o Village- Siswa, P.S.- Gogri, District- Khagaria.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Viveka Nandsingh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Khare ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL ORDER 17-08-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
Petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 07.03.2017 in connection with Parbatta P.S. Case No. 296/2016, G.R. No. 2678/2016 for offences punishable under Section 364-A of the Indian Penal Code.
The prosecution case, as lodged by the informant, is that while his brother after closing his shop was returning home, has been kidnapped by the culprits. Name of one of the co-accused Guddu Singh has been mentioned in the First Information Report. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is innocent, charge-sheet has already been submitted and there is no allegation of tampering of the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.35260 of 2017 (2) dt.17-08-2017 2/3 prosecution witnesses by the petitioner. He submits that on the confessional statement of one Guddu Singh, his name surfaced, which has no evidentiary value in the eye of law. He further submits that another co-accused, whose name surfaced on the confessional statement of Guddu Singh, has since been granted privilege of bail by this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 19785/2017 on 21.06.2017. It is submitted that nothing incriminating has been recovered from his possession and the victim has already returned home just a day after lodging of the First Information Report. However, learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances and the materials on record, let petitioner, above named, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate 1st, Khagaria, in connection with Parbatta P.S. Case No. 296/2016, subject to the condition that one of the bailors would be a close relative of the petitioner having sufficient immovable property within the jurisdiction of the concerned police station/ court, who will file an affidavit stating his relationship with the petitioner and that petitioner will appear before the learned court below during trial as and when required
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.35260 of 2017 (2) dt.17-08-2017 3/3 and failure to appear on two consecutive dates without assigning any reason will entail cancellation of his bail bonds. It is also made clear that if the petitioner indulges in an offence of similar nature in future, the prosecution will be at liberty to move the learned court below for cancellation of his bail bonds. (Nilu Agrawal, J) Rajesh/- U T