Guddu Sah v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.6125 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -105 Year- 2016 Thana -SAMASTIPUR GRP CASE DistrictSAMASTIPUR ====================================================== Guddu Sah, son of Laxmi Sah, Resident of Village- Harpur Sari, P.S.- Parsauni, District- Sitamarhi.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance:

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party : APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 29-03-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is in custody since 25.11.2016 in connection with Rail Darbhanga (Sitamarhi) P.S. Case No. 105 of 2016 for the alleged offences under Sections 370, 374, 177/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 79 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated on mere suspicion as he happens to be in the same compartment in the train while travelling to Mumbai. Similarly situated co-accused Sonu Bhagat has been granted bail by this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 6463 of 2017. The petitioner claims clean antecedents.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6125 of 2017 (4) dt.29-03-2017

4. Having regard to the entirety of the 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 like amount each to the satisfaction of learned A.C.J.M. (Rail), Samastipur in connection with Rail Darbhanga (Sitamarhi) P.S. Case No. 105 of 2016 on the following conditions - (i) That one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioner.

(ii) That the petitioner shall not indulge in any similar offence till conclusion of the trial.

(iii)That the petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation, if not already concluded, and make himself available as and when so required and in case of failure, the State shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

(iv) That the petitioner shall remain physically present in court on each and every date during trial and in the event of failure on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be liable to be cancelled by the learned Court concerned. (Vikash Jain, J) Chandran/BT U T