Patna High CourtCR. MISC./43671/2018bail granted

Mahesh Sao v. The State Of Bihar

2018-09-24Mr. Justice S. Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.43671 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -105 Year- 2016 Thana -JHAJHA District- JAMUI ====================================================== Mahesh Sao son of Kedar Sao Resident of village- Nariyana, P.S.- Khaira, District- Jamui .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Asha Devi, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL ORDER 24-09-2018 Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in Jhajha P.S. Case No. 105/2016, registered for the offence punishable under Section 364(A) of the Indian Penal Code.

Informant has alleged abduction of his father and demand of Rs. Twenty lakhs as ransom for his release. It has been submitted on behalf of petitioner that abducted person has been recovered and his name surfaced in this case on the confessional statement of Raju Yadav. It has been submitted that Raju Yadav has been granted bail by this court vide order dated 21.04.2017 passed in Cr. Misc. 14631/2017. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent. He is in custody since 29.01.2018.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43671 of 2018 (3) dt.24-09-2018 2/2 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 Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamui in connection with Jamui P.S. Case No. 105/2016, 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