Saurabh Kumar @ Chanchal Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.42867 of 2018 ======================================================

1. Saurabh Kumar @ Chanchal Kumar, Son of Hemchandra Thakur, R/o Village- Basant Jagjivan, P.S.- Purnahiya, District- Sheohar. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjan Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Kumar Ranjit Ranjan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 25-09-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in Matihani P.S. Case No. 04/2018, instituted for the offences under Sections 25(1-b)A and 26 of the Arms Act.

It is alleged in the written report that on getting information that an international smuggler of Arms was on way of Ballia, police party reached the place of occurrence. Seeing the police party, one person started running away, who was arrested on chase. It is further alleged that firearms and mobile phone were recovered from the possession of apprehended person. Leaned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is in custody since 13.01.2018. He has been arrested merely on suspicion.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.42867 of 2018 (3) dt.25-09-2018 2/2 Keeping in view the period of custody of the petitioner, prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail is allowed. Let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai in connection with Matihani P.S. Case No. 04/2018, subject to the conditions that (i) both the bailors shall be the close relative of the petitioner (ii) petitioner shall cooperate in the trial and shall be present on each and every date fixed by the court and absence on two consecutive dates without valid reason will amount to cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner and (3) if petitioner tamper with the evidence, in that case, prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail of the petitioner. (Sanjay Priya, J.) Rakhi U T