Heeralal Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.33624 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -204 Year- 2014 Thana -KARPI District- JEHANABAD ====================================================== Heeralal Singh, Son of Late Raghunandan Singh, Resident of VillagePanchi Bigha, P.S.- Karpi Sahar Telpa, District- Arwal. .... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranjay Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Sri Satyendra Prasad (APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 07-09-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for representing the State.
The petitioner wants to renew the prayer of bail, which was earlier twice rejected by order dated 10.04.2015 and 13.01.2016 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 8793 of 2015 and Cr. Misc. No. 50794 of 2015 respectively, on the ground that the petitioner is suffering in custody since 27.11.2014. There is no specific allegation against him. One of co-accused Dina Nath Singh has been allowed bail by another co-ordinate Bench of this Court and the trial has not been concluded within six months as per order dated 13.01.2016 and, as such, the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration.
Learned A.P.P. fairly submits that against the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.33624 of 2016 (3) dt.07-09-2016 2/2 petitioner there is no specific allegation and one of co-accused Dina Nath Singh has been allowed bail by another co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
In the facts and circumstances stated above, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on execution of bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge-III, Jehanabad in connection with Sessions Trial No. 69 of 2015 arising out of Karpi (Sahar Telpa O.P.) P.S. Case No. 204 of 2014, 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.) Rajiv/- U T