Arvind Kumar @ Arbind Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.78286 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-274 Year-2017 Thana- PALIGANJ District- Patna ====================================================== Arvind Kumar @ Arbind Kumar, Son of Dwarik Mahto @ Chhotu Mahto, R/o- Purani Sarai, P.S. Paliganj, District- Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar.
... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Samrendra Kumar Jha For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Arbind Kumar Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL ORDER 02-01-2019 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioner seeks bail in Paliganj P.S. Case No. 274 of 2017 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code.
Earlier, the bail application of the petitioner was rejected vide Annexure-1, giving a liberty to renew his prayer after six months in jail custody.
It has been submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 09.06.2018.
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/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Danapur, Patna in connection with Paliganj
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.78286 of 2018(2) dt.02-01-2019 2/2 P.S. Case No. 274 of 2017, with following 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 properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the Court and his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the court below.
(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) Sanjay/- U T