Sukhari Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.4544 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -161 Year- 2015 Thana -MINAPUR District- MUZAFFARPUR ====================================================== Sukhari Mahto, son of late Budhan Mahto, R/o - Vill.- Aura, P.S.- Taryani, District- Sheohar.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anish Kumar, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Aditya Narayan Singh 1, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 14-02-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner seeks bail in a case instituted for the offence under Sections 385, 387, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 10, 13 and 15 of U.A.P. Act. It has been submitted that the petitioner is not named in the First Information Report. His name has come during investigation on the basis of confessional statement of the petitioner recorded by the police.

The learned Sessions Judge has mentioned in the impugned order itself that at the time of demand of levy, the petitioner was in custody in connection with Kazi Mohammadpur P.S. Case No. 122 of 2015. There is no any material to show that the mobile phone, from which the levy is alleged to have been

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.4544 of 2017 (2) dt.14-02-2017 2/2 demanded, belonged to the petitioner. Moreover, from the written report itself, it appears that the aforesaid demand was made by Karan Kumar.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, 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 learned Sessions Judge-cum-Spl. Judge, Muzaffarpur, in connection with Minapur P.S. Case No. 161 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. No. 2317 of 2015, subject to the condition that both the bailors will be the close relatives of the petitioner.

(Sanjay Priya, J) S.Ali/- U T