Sonu Sah @ Govinda @ Govinda Sah v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.43690 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -106 Year- 2017 Thana -KHARAGPUR District- MUNGER ====================================================== Sonu Sah @ Govinda @ Govinda Sah Son of Anil Sah Resident of VillageBahadurpur, P.S. Bariarpur, Distt. Munger. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kumar Kamal Nayan, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL ORDER 25-09-2018 Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in Kharagpur P.S. Case No. 106/2017, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 386, 387 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Informant has alleged that on 04.04.2017, he received a mobile call in which ransom of Rs. Two lakh was demanded in the name of Sonu Sah (petitioner) who is in judicial custody. Again, on 06.04.2017, informant received another call from Sonu Sah in which it was stated that his associates were going to his shop to collect the ransom money. Informant paid Rs. 5,000/- to them. It has been submitted that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. From tower location, it was found that calls were made from Village-Sanha, District - Begusarai and not

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43690 of 2018 (3) dt.25-09-2018 2/2 from the Munger jail. Petitioner is in custody since 22.04.2017. Considering the facts aforesaid, the petitioner abovenamed, is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munger in connection with Kharagpur P.S. Case No. 106/2017, subject to the conditions:

(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 present on each and every date fixed by the court and his absence on two consecutive dates without proper and reasonable reason will be sufficient to cancel his bail bonds.

(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) Vinita/- U T