Sukesh Pandey v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.60311 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-115 Year-2018 Thana- ROHTAS District- Rohtas ====================================================== Sukesh Pandey Son of Shiv Shankar Pandey, resident of VillagePathkhauliya, Police Station- Rohtas, District- Rohtas. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajani Kant Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sri Satyendra Narayan Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL ORDER 11-10-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner, who is in custody, seeks bail in connection with Rohtas P.S. Case No. 115 of 2018 registered for the offence punishable under Section 386/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 10, 20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

Petitioner is not named in the FIR. Allegation is demand of extortion against Dilip Singh organization. Petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused Birendra Yadav who has already been granted bail by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 11.09.2018 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 42977 of 2018. During course of investigation the I.O. has brought C.D.R. of different mobile numbers but those mobile number is not the mobile of petitioner. Petitioner is in custody since 16.07.2018.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.60311 of 2018(2) dt.11-10-2018 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 J.M., 1st Class, Dehri, District- Rohtas, in connection with Rohtas P.S. Case No. 115 of 2018 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 present 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