Chhotan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.85868 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-156 Year-2019 Thana- PUNAURA District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== CHHOTAN KUMAR Son of Deep Narayan Bhagat Resident of Village - Bhasar Maldih, P.S.- Sitamarhi, District- Sitamarhi ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr.Meena Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL ORDER 17-01-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

Petitioner, who is in custody seeks bail in a case registered under Sections 356, 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Informant has alleged that on 20.09.2019 he had withdrawn Rs. 49,000/- and kept in his bag and thereafter boarded a tempo, upon which both the accused were sitting and it is further alleged that in mid way they snatched the money and fled away.

It has been submitted on behalf of petitioner that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Allegations are false and concocted. The incident is of 20.09.2019 whereas FIR was instituted on 25.09.2019. Petitioner is in custody since 14.10.2019.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85868 of 2019(2) dt.17-01-2020 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. 20,000/- (twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned court below, in connection with Punara P.S. Case No. 156 of 2019 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 properly represented 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