Ramashish Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.50061 of 2018 (3) dt.01-10-2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.50061 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -29 Year- 2010 Thana -NAVHATTA District- SASARAM (ROHTAS) ====================================================== Ramashish Yadav, S/o Shiv Yadav, Resident of Village- Hasari P.S. Nauhatta, District- Rohtas.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Chandra Mohan Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. S. Ehteshamuddin, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 01-10-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in Nauhatta P.S. Case No. 29 of 2010, instituted for the offences under Section(s) 147, 148, 447, 448, 386, 387, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 17 of C.L.A. Act.

It is alleged in the written report that the informant got information by one Sugreev Singh that petitioner and other accused persons have locked his house with intention to take possession of his house.

Counsel for the petitioner further submits that besides suspicion there is no other specific allegation made against the petitioner.

Petitioner is in custody since 15.07.2017.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.50061 of 2018 (3) dt.01-10-2018 Report of court below has been received in this case wherein it is mentioned that case is fixed for framing of charge on 01.09.2018.

Considering the aforesaid fact and circumstances, prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail is allowed. Let the petitioner, above named, 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 the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dehri, Rohtas in Nauhatta P.S. Case No.29 of 2010 , subject to the conditions that (i) both the bailors shall be the close relative of the petitioner.

(ii) petitioner shall be present on each and every date fixed by the court and absence on two consecutive dates without valid reason will result in cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner and (iii) if petitioner tampers with the evidence in the case, prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner.

(Sanjay Priya, J) Rakhi U T