Allowed

Shashi Kant Sharma @ Sonu v. The State Of Bihar

Patna HC10 Aug 2016CR. MISC./31620/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous petition for bail renewal, the Patna High Court granted bail to the petitioner after considering his long custody, the framing of charge, and the lack of likelihood to tamper with prosecution evidence, allowing execution of a bail bond with sureties and conditions to remain present at trial.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to be released on bail with two sureties of Rs. 10,000/- each, subject to conditions including presence at every trial date.

Shashi Kant Sharma @ Sonu Vs The State Of Bihar — Bail and Remand | Patna HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Criminal Miscellaneous No.31620 of 2016

¶3

Arising Out of PS.Case No. -144 Year- 2014 Thana -BANIAPUR District- SARAN

¶4

====================================================== Shashi Kant Sharma @ Sonu Son of Kameshwar Sharma Resident of village - Darhibari, P.S. Baniapur, District - Saran .... .... Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Manindra Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Sri Upendra Kumar (APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER

¶5

2 10-08-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

¶6

The petitioner wants to renew his prayer of bail, which was earlier rejected vide order dated 29.10.2015 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 29488 of 2015, on the ground that the petitioner is in custody since 21.04.2015 and the trial has not been concluded within the time granted by this court. The independent witnesses vide Para 80, 81, 82, & 83 of the case diary have not supported the prosecution version. Charge has already been framed on 24.02.2016 and there is no chance of tampering with prosecution evidence.

¶7

Learned APP duly assisted by learned counsel for the informant and opposes the prayer of bail by submitting that the

¶8

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.31620 of 2016 (2) dt.10-08-2016

¶9

2/2

¶10

accused persons delayed the trial by filing the petition under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C.

¶11

In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering the custody of the petitioner and further that there is no chance of tampering with the prosecution evidence and as such now the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on execution of bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge XI , Saran at Chapra in S. Tr. No. 636 of 2015 arising out of Baniapur P.S. Case No. 144 of 2014, subject to the conditions that one of the bailors must be a near relative and another having sufficient immovable property within the territorial jurisdiction of the court concerned and the petitioner shall remain present on each and every date during trial and the default on two consecutive dates on his part without any reason shall disentitle the petitioner from privilege of bail.

¶12

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J.)

¶13

Rajiv/-

¶14

Shashi Kant Sharma @ Sonu v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shashi Kant Sharma @ Sonu v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Chamela Devi Vs Smt. Ram Sakhi Devi

Meer Hafeez and Ors. Vs Meer Abdullah and Ors.

Pradhu Datta Singh and Ors. Vs Manorma Singh and Ors.

Anil Sharma Vs The State Of Bihar

Himanshu Verma Vs The State Of Bihar

Arvind Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar