Umesh Kumar Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.82442 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-165 Year-2018 Thana- SONPUR RAIL P.S. District- Saran ====================================================== UMESH KUMAR MAHTO Son of Sri Raghunath Mahto Resident of Village - Chainpur (Chandrapura), Police Station - Fatehpur (Raghopur), DistrictVaishali. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ranjan Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Shailendra Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL ORDER 05-02-2020 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 08/20/22 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

Earlier also, petitioner had moved this Court for grant of regular bail which was rejected vide Annexue 1 with liberty to renew his prayer for bail after completing one year in jail custody.

Allegation is recovery of 20.200 k.g. of Ganja from possession of three accused.

It has been submitted that petitioner is in custody since 28.10.2018 having no criminal antecedent.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82442 of 2019(2) dt.05-02-2020 2/2 the case, let the petitioner named above be released on bail upon furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned court below where the case is pending in connection with N. D. P. S. Case No. 28/2018 arising out of Sonepur Rail P.S. Case No.165/2018, 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