Raj Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58380 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-72 Year-2018 Thana- BASANHI District- Saharsa ====================================================== RAJ KUMAR YADAV Son of Ghuter Yadav @ Gutar Yadav Resident of Village-Durgapur, Ward No.8, Police Station-Basnahi, District-Saharsa. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Shailendra Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL ORDER 16-10-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

Petitioner, who is in custody, seeks bail in connection with S.T. No. 196/2018 arising out of Basnahi P.S. Case No. 72 of 2018 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 452, 387, 307 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of Arms Act.

Petitioner had earlier moved this Court for regular bail vide Cr. Misc. No. 79994 of 2018 which was rejected on 26.02.2019 with a liberty to renew his prayer for bail after completing one year in custody.

Informant has alleged in his fardbeyan that petitioner alongwith other co-accused fired upon his back due to nonpayment of extortion, as a result of which he sustained firearm

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58380 of 2019(2) dt.16-10-2019 2/2 injury.

It has been submitted on behalf of petitioner that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Petitioner is in custody since 04.08.2018.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioner named above be released on bail upon furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned A.D.J.-III, Saharsa, in connection with S.T. No. 196/2018 arising out of Basnahi P.S. Case No. 72 of 2018 subject to the conditions that:-

(1) Bailors should be local having sufficient immovable property within the jurisdiction of the court concerned.

(2) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and his absence on two consecutive dates without proper and sufficient reason the trial court will be at liberty to cancel his bail bond.

(3) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses of the case, in that case, prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail of the petitioner.

(S. Kumar, J) veena/- U T