Bharat Bhuiyan v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.77917 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-24 Year-2011 Thana- DHIBRA District- Aurangabad ====================================================== Bharat Bhuiyan son of Shohan Bhuiyan Resident of Village - Patal Ganga, P.S. - Deo, District - Aurangabad ( Bihar) ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Ranjit Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Sri Amit Kumar Rakesh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL ORDER 04-01-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
Petitioner, who is in custody, seeks bail in connection with Dhibra P.S. Case No. 24 of 2011 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 373, 307, 353, 427 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of Arms Act and 17 C.L. Act.
FIR was registered against 300 unknown persons. Name of petitioner has surfaced in this case on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused Santan Bhuiyan. Similarly placed co-accused, namely, Baburam Bhakta has been granted bail by this Hon'ble Court as contained in Annexure-2. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he is in custody since 21.08.2018.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.77917 of 2018(2) dt.04-01-2019 2/2 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad, in connection with Dhibra P.S. Case No. 24 of 2011 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