Nitish Yadav @ Rakesh Yadav @ Rakesh Kumar Yadav @ Nitish Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.45339 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -59 Year- 2017 Thana -ROSERA District- SAMASTIPUR ====================================================== Nitish Yadav @ Rakesh Yadav @ Rakesh Kumar Yadav @ Nitish Kumar Yadav, Son of Bachkun Yadav @ Buchkun Yadav, resident of VillageThahar Basadhiya, Police Station- Rosera, District- Samastipur. .... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Kundan Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party: APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 18-10-2017 A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. Let it be kept on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
3. The petitioner is in custody since 29.03.2017 in connection with G.R. No. 257/2017 arising out of Rosera P.S. Case No. 59 of 2017 for the offences alleged under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and subsequently, Section 411 of the IPC has been added.
4. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated as he is none other than the driver of the informant and there was an altercation between the parties with regard to payment of wages. It is submitted that nothing has been recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner or from his house rather the vehicle was left in the field by the informant himself.
5. Be that as it may, having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioner above named be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45339 of 2017 (3) dt.18-10-2017 2/2 satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rosera, District Samastipur in connection with G.R. No. 257/2017 arising out of Rosera P.S. Case No. 59 of 2017, on the following conditions:- (i) That one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioner.
(ii) That the petitioner shall not indulge in any similar offence till conclusion of the trial. (iii) That the petitioner shall remain physically present in court on each and every date during trial and in the event of failure on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be liable to be cancelled by the learned Court concerned.
(iv) The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation, if not already concluded, and make himself available as and when so required and in case of failure, the State shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.
(Vikash Jain, J) B.T/Chandran U T