Sudhanshu Kumar v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.53059 of 2017 ====================================================== Sudhanshu Kumar, S/o Manoj Kumar, R/o D- 187, DDA Flats, Pocke-3, P.S.- Bindapur, Dwarka, New Delhi- 110059.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Priya Singh, Wife of Sri Himanshu Kumar, Resident of 1st Floor, 32/16, East Patel Nagar, P.S.- Patel Nagar, District- Patna. .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajit Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Smt. Madhuri Lata ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 13-12-2017 Earlier the petitioner was granted bail by this Court in Cr.Misc.No. 2686 of 2017, vide order dated 22.2.2017 with conditions that one of the bailors of the petitioner shall be a local person having sufficient immoveable property within the jurisdiction of the court concerned and petitioner shall co-operate in the trial of the case and make himself available as and when required by the court and on the event of failure on his part to appear before the court on two consecutive dates without showing any genuine reason, the prosecution is free to move for cancellation of his bail bond.

It appears from the argument of both the parties that bail bond of the petitioner was cancelled as he could not appear before the court on call. It further appears that thereafter bail has been

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.53059 of 2017 (2) dt.13-12-2017 2/2 granted to the petitioner by the trial court itself. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that condition No.2 imposed on him may be modified as he is Assistant Professor in Delhi and it is difficult for him to appear on each and every date.

Heard learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State. They have opposed the modification application on the ground that bail bond of the petitioner has already been cancelled and he has been granted bail by the trial court and, as such, modification of the order passed by this Court does not arise. In view of facts and circumstances, this modification application is dismissed as there is no merit in it. If petitioner wants to modify the condition imposed on him by the trial court he should move the trial court for the same. (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) spal/- U