Vikram Kamti v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.18483 of 2017 (2) dt.23-05-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.18483 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -286 Year- 2016 Thana -ROSERA District- SAMASTIPUR ====================================================== Vikram Kamti Son of Sri Kamat Kant Kamti, Resident of Village- Gaighat, P.S.- Rosera, District- Samastipur (Bihar).

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vinay Kumar Mishra For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Arbind Kumar Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 23-05-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Rosera P.S. Case No. 286 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 457, 380 of the Indian Penal Code in which Section 411 IPC was added later on.

Allegedly, the petitioner was apprehended when he after committing theft was trying to flee away.

Submission is of false implication and that the petitioner has been made victim of circumstances, nothing has been recovered from his conscious possession. Section 411 IPC was added after two days though earlier FIR has been lodged under Sections 457 and 380 IPC only, the petitioner is suffering in custody since 16.11.2016 and he has remained in custody for a considerable period.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.18483 of 2017 (2) dt.23-05-2017 Learned APP fairly submits that the petitioner has remained in custody for more than six months. In the facts and circumstances stated above, the petitioner above named is directed to be released on bail on execution of bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rosera in connection with Rosera P.S. Case No. 286 of 2016, subject to the conditions that one of the bailors must be a near relative and another having sufficient immovable property within the territorial jurisdiction of the court concerned and the petitioner shall remain present on each and every date during trial and the default on two consecutive dates on his part without any reason shall disentitle the petitioner from privilege of bail.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U T