Lakhan Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16539 of 2015 (6) dt.03-08-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.16539 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -109 Year- 2014 Thana -CHAKAI District- JAMUI ======================================================
1. Lakhan Yadav Son of Jagdish Yadav, Resident of Village - Lalpur, P.S. - Kauwakol, District - Nawadah.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with Criminal Miscellaneous No.17746 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -109 Year- 2014 Thana -CHAKAI District- JAMUI ====================================================== Majid Mian son of Bispat Mian resident of village Madhopur P.S. Chakai, Dist. Jamui .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance:
(In Cr.Misc. No.16539 of 2015) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prakash Mahto For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. A.Sharma (App) (In Cr.Misc. No.17746 of 2015) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satya Prakash Parasar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Prem Kumar Jha(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 06/ 03.08.2015 Both the above stated petitions arise out of Chakai P.S. Case no. 109/2014 registered under section 17 of the CLA Act, sections 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 U.A. P.A. Act as well as section 4/ 5 of the Explosive Substance Act and accordingly, both the above stated petitions are being disposed of by this common order. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16539 of 2015 (6) dt.03-08-2015 Petitioner in Cr. Misc. no. 16539/2015 is not named in the first information report whereas petitioner in Cr. Misc. no. 17746/2015 is named in the first information report but admittedly, no incriminating article has been recovered from conscious possession of petitioner in Cr. Misc. no. 17746/2015 and it is only stated that he was caught along with co-accused Md. Ismiel from whose possession some articles have been recovered.
So far as petitioner in Cr. Misc. no. 16539/2015 is concerned, in course of investigation, one laptop was recovered from his possession and according to the prosecution case itself, the aforesaid laptop belongs to one Chiragda and the said laptop had been given to the petitioner for repairing.
Moreover, both petitioners do not have any criminal antecedent which is evident from perusal of respective para 3 of the petition.
Accordingly, petitioners are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs 10,000/- each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamui in Chakai P.S. Case no. 109/2014.
shahid (Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J) U T