Patna High CourtCR. MISC./63532/2023bail granted

Sanyog Kumar @ Sanyog Rai @ Sanjog Kumar @ Sanjog Rai v. The State Of Bihar

2023-10-10Mr. Justice Sudhir Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.63532 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-110 Year-2022 Thana- MAHINDWARA District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== 1.

Sanyog Kumar @ Sanyog Rai @ Sanjog Kumar @ Sanjog Rai S/O Sukul Rai R/O Village- Korlahiya, P.S- Mahindwara, Distt.- Sitamarhi. 2.

Sanjit Kumar @ Santosh Kumar S/O Sukul Rai R/O Village- Korlahiya, P.SMahindwara, Distt.- Sitamarhi. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Tribhuwan Narayan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Anuj Kumar Shrivastava, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 10-10-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioners seek bail in a case registered under Sections 399 & 402 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1b)a, 26, 35 of the Arms Act.

3. As per allegation, the Police, on receipt of secret information, reached at Maharani Asthan. On seeing the police party, the miscreants gathered there started to flee away but, the police apprehended two of them. On search, the police recovered one country made Katta, one live cartridge and a sharp edged knife from their possession.

4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63532 of 2023(2) dt.10-10-2023 2/2 that the petitioners are in custody since 26.05.2023 and 27.05.2023 respectively. Charge-sheet/prosecution report has been submitted in this case. There is no allegation of tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioners. The petitioners have falsely been implicated in the present case. No fire arms is said to have been recovered from the possession of the petitioners. The names of the petitioners have transpired in this case on the basis of disclosure made by the co-accused namely Bhujali @ Shivam. Except for this, there is no other substantive evidence to suggest the implication of the petitioners in this case.

5. On behalf of the State, it is submitted that the petitioners are named in the F.I.R.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is directed that the petitioners, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Court below/concerned Court in connection with Mahindwara P.S. Case No. 110 of 2022.

(Sudhir Singh, J) rishi/- U T