Bipin Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.39428 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -209 Year- 2017 Thana -KARJA District- MUZAFFARPUR ====================================================== Bipin Kumar Son of Mahendra Sahni, Resident of village- Bahilwara Govind Laxmipur, P.S.- Saraiya, District- Muzaffarpur. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arvind Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Satyendra Narayan Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR ORAL ORDER 24-07-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Karja P.S. Case No.209 of 2017 registered for the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code. It has been submitted that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. but in the confessional statement made before the police by one Om Prakash Sharma, who was an accused in Karja P.S. Case No.11 of 2018, the name of this petitioner has surfaced, which has no evidentiary value. The other co-accused, namely, Dinesh Mahto has been allowed bail by one of the coordinate bench of this court in Cr.Misc.No.36925 of 2018 on 17.07.2018. The case of this petitioner stands on similar footing. He is in
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39428 of 2018 (3) dt.24-07-2018 custody since 26.02.2018 and so he deserves bail. The learned A.P.P. for the State opposed the submission.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer of bail is allowed. The petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned A.C.J.M. II (W), Muzaffarpur in connection with Karja P.S. Case No.209 of 2017, 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) If the petitioner is found involved in future in similar type of allegation, the prosecution will have liberty to move for cancellation of bail. (iv) The petitioner shall cooperate in the disposal of trial and make himself available as and when required by the court and on the event of failure on his part to appear before the court below on two consecutive dates without showing any genuine reasons, the prosecution is free to move for cancellation of his bail. (Sanjay Kumar, J) Harish/- U