Md. Nasruddin @ Nasruddin Ansari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.7841 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -91 Year- 2016 Thana -SAMASTIPUR GRP CASE DistrictSAMASTIPUR ====================================================== Md. Nasruddin @ Nasruddin Ansari, son of Md. Sainul Ansari, resident of Village : - Murli, P.S. : - Dhaka, District : - East Champaran at Motihari. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dr. Alok Kumar Alok with Mr. Dilip Kumar Roy, Advocates For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Narsingh Tanti, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 22-02-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

This is an application for bail in connection with Rail P.S. DBG (SMT) case No. 91 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 16 of Bonded Labour System Abolition Act, 1976. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that only allegation against the petitioner is that he was taking one boy to Maharashtra for human trafficking but, as a matter of fact, the boy has been handed over to his parents and petitioner is in custody for four months.

Heard learned APP also.

Having heard both sides and considering the nature of allegation and period of custody, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Railway Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Samastipur, in connection with Rail P.S. DBG (SMT) Case No. 91 of 2016, subject to the conditions that :-

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7841 of 2017 (2) dt.22-02-2017 2/2 (i) Both the bailors of the petitioner shall be local persons having sufficient immovable properties within the jurisdiction of the concerned Court.

(ii) The petitioner will not induce any witness or tamper with the evidence.

(iii) The petitioner shall cooperate in the disposal of trial 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 below on two consecutive dates without showing any genuine reason, the prosecution is free to move the cancellation of his bail.

Considering the nature of allegation, the trial court is further directed to conclude the trial of the petitioner within a period of one year and the petitioner is directed to co-operate in the trial.

With the above observations, this application is allowed.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) spal/- U