Bablu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.5433 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-102 Year-2019 Thana- NOWKOTHI GARHPURA DistrictBegusarai ====================================================== BABLU KUMAR Son of Mantun Mahton Resident of Village - Razzaquepur, P.S.- Nawkothi, Distt - Begusarai.

... ... Appellant/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Mr.Sandip Kumar Gautam, Adv For the State :

Mr.Binay Krishna, APP For the Informant : Mr.Shubhesh Pandey, Adv : Mr.Neeraj Kumar Panale, Adv : Mr.Suraj Kumar Singh, Adv ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 04-02-2020 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This is an appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the refusal of prayer for bail by order dated 22.11.2019 in Nawkothi P.S.Case No.102 of 2019 passed by the learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Begusarai, registered under Sections 364,201,34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Only suspicion has been raised against the appellant to be involved in murder of Ritesh Kumar. The confessional statement of co-accused-Mantu Mahto would reveal that Mantu Mahto is

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5433 of 2019(4) dt.04-02-2020 2/2 the assailant of Ritesh Kumar. Investigation of the case is already complete.

Learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail.

Considering the fact that there is no substantial material against the appellant, let the appellant, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court-below where the case is pending in connection with the aforesaid case, with condition that both bailors shall be resident of territorial jurisdiction of the learned court below and further the appellant shall fully cooperate with the trial of the case, failing which the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bond of the appellant. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and this appeal stands allowed.

(Birendra Kumar, J) Nitesh/- U T