Vinay Ravidas @ Purusottam @ Sudhakar @ Nut Bolt @ Ranjan @ Vinay Das v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.43053 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -264 Year- 2016 Thana -SIRDALA District- NAWADA ======================================================

1. Vinay Ravidas @ Purusottam @ Sudhakar @ Nut Bolt @ Ranjan @ Vinay Das, Son of Ram Ratan Das, Resident of Village- Malhad, P.S. Venday (Goh), District- Aurangabad.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ram Prawesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 11-10-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sirdala P.S. Case No. 264/2016, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 379, 427, 436, 504, 506 and 387 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act as well as Sections 15, 18, 19 and 20 of the U.A.P. Act. Earlier prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected with direction to the learned trial court to expedite the trial. It appears that case has been committed to the court of Sessions and the petitioner is in custody from eleven months. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he along with 62 accused persons have been identified by the informant with their parentage, which is not possible. Now the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43053 of 2017 (3) dt.11-10-2017 2/2 petitioner has remained in custody for about eleven months and even charge has not been framed in this case. Further, the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions imposed upon him by the Hon'ble Court.

Heard learned A.P.P. also.

Having heard both sides, in view of the facts and circumstances as state and in spite of direction to the court below the trial has not been concluded and other accused persons have been granted bail, let the petitioner, above named, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate V, Nawada, in connection with Sirdala P.S. Case No. 264/2016, subject to conditions that one of the bailors should be close relative of the petitioner and another having sufficient immovable property within the jurisdiction of the court below with further condition that he will make himself available before the police station of his area in first week of each months till conclusion of trial, so that police may watch his conduct, otherwise his bail bond shall be cancelled.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J.) Rakhi U T