Vakil @ Rustam v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.77728 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-672 Year-2016 Thana- ARARIA District- Araria ====================================================== Vakil @ Rustam, son of Md. Yasin @ Yaseen Mansuri, resident of village, Belwari, Police Station, Araria (Bairgachhi), District, Araria ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Mukesh Kumar Rana For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Md. Ansarul Haque ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL ORDER 03-01-2019 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioner seeks bail in Araria P.S. Case No.672 of 2016 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 379 of the Indian Penal Code and later on Section 411 of the I.P.C. was also added.

Allegation is recovery of one stolen motorcycle from the shop of the petitioner.

It has been submitted that petitioner is innocent and on the stolen motorcycle, one of his customer, Belal had come for refreshment and his signature also bears on the seizure list. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he is in custody since 30.08.2018.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioner named above be released on bail upon

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.77728 of 2018(2) dt.03-01-2019 2/2 furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Araria in connection with Araria P.S. Case No.672 of 2016, 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