Kaushal Kumar @ Guddu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.63898 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -512 Year- 2018 Thana -SHERGHATI District- GAYA ======================================================
1. Kaushal Kumar @ Guddu Kumar, Son of Basudev Prasad, Resident of Dirama Tand, Police Station- Cherki, District- Gaya. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ansul, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Dr.Mrityunjaya Kr.Gautam, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 25-10-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.
The Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Sherghti (Dhobi) P.S.Case No. 512 of 2018, registered for offences punishable under Sections 414/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 30 (d ) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. Allegation against the petitioner as per F.I.R. is of recovery of 200 Kg of Mahua Flowers from the tempo of the petitioner and the petitioner has been apprehended. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has nothing to do with Mahua flowers and he has no connection with the seized tempo. It is also submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he is in custody since
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.63898 of 2018 (2) dt.25-10-2018 2/2 11.09.2018.
Heard learned A.P.P also.
Having heard both sides and in view of the facts and circumstances, as stated above, let the petitioner, above named, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- ( Rupees Twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, Excise, Gaya in connection with Sherghati ( Dhobi) P.S.Case No. 512 of 2018, subject to the following conditions:- i) One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be a local person having sufficient immovable property within the jurisdiction of the concerned Court. ii) The petitioner will not induce any witness or tamper with the evidence.
iii) It is made clear that if petitioner found involved in any of the like offences, in future, prosecution is free to move for cancellation of his bail bonds. (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) Sudha/- U T