Allowed

Santosh Sharma v. The State Of Bihar

Patna HC24 Aug 2016CR. MISC./33035/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court granted bail to the petitioner in a criminal bail application. Considering the delay in trial, lack of witness production by the informant, and absence of tampering risk, the court directed release on a bail bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Directed release of the petitioner on bail on execution of a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of the like amount.

Santosh Sharma Vs The State Of Bihar — Bail and Remand | Patna HC (2016)

¶1

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.33035 of 2016 (2) dt.24-08-2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶3

Criminal Miscellaneous No.33035 of 2016

¶4

Arising Out of PS.Case No. -448 Year- 2013 Thana -ARA NAWADA District- BHOJPUR

¶5

====================================================== 1. Santosh Sharma Son of Late Satya Narayan Sharma, Resident of VillageRup Chakiya P.S Chandi, District- Bhojpur at Ara (Bihar)..... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri S.M. Rahman ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 2 24-08-2016 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 05.01.2016 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 50145 of 2015, on the ground that there is no direct evidence against the petitioner and he is suffering in custody since 25.02.2015, trial has not been concluded within the time given by this Court and from the ordersheet dated 16.07.2016 it reveals that the informant does not want to produce the witnesses, there is no chance of tampering with prosecution evidence and in near future the trial is not likely to be concluded and, as such, the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration.

¶7

Learned APP opposes the prayer of bail.

¶8

In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering

¶9

the custody of the petitioner and further that in near future the trial

¶10

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.33035 of 2016 (2) dt.24-08-2016

¶11

is not likely to be concluded and there is no chance of tampering with prosecution evidence, the petitioner above named is directed to be released on bail on execution of bail bond of Rs. 10,000/(ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned 3^rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Ara in S. Tr. No. 37 of 2016 arising out of Nawadah P.S. Case No. 448 of 2013, 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

avin/-

¶14

U T

Santosh Sharma v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Sharma 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Mahton and Ors. Vs Shakuntala Devi and Ors.

Chandra Shekhar Kr. Chauhan and Vs Naresh Pd. @ Bishundeo Chauhan

Banita Devi and Ors. Vs the Reliance General Insurance

Sushil Sah Vs The State Of Bihar

Shila Devi Vs The State Of Bihar

Ram Belash Ram and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar