Allowed

Manoj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

Patna HC16 Dec 2016CR. MISC./52312/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court, in an oral order, granted bail to a petitioner languishing in judicial custody in an FIR registered under Sections 354 and 506 of the IPC. The court observed that the charge sheet had been submitted and directed the petitioner to furnish a bail bond with two sureties, one being a close relative.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties, one being a close relative and the other owning immovable property locally.

Manoj Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar — Bail and Remand | Patna HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Criminal Miscellaneous No.52312 of 2016

¶3

Arising Out of PS.Case No. -241 Year- 2016 Thana -JAKKANPUR District- PATNA

¶4

====================================================== 1. Manoj Kumar, S/o Late Munna Prasad, resident of Purandarpur, Gaya Line Road, P.S. Jakkanpur, District - Patna

¶5

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus 1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Saket Tiwary, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Bachan Singh, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL ORDER

¶7

2 16-12-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶8

Petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 20.09.2016 in connection with Jakkanpur P. S. Case No. 241 of 2016 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 354 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code..

¶9

The prosecution case as lodged by the informant is that the petitioner along with other boys used to pass filth comments upon his daughter, aged about 15 years, while she went to attend the school. The informant followed his daughter to school and caught hold the petitioner, who was passing filthy comments and he named the other co-accused.

¶10

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is innocent has no criminal history and he is the sole bread winner of the family. He further submits that Section

¶11

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.52312 of 2016 (2) dt.16-12-2016

¶12

2/2

¶13

354 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against him and that charge sheet has already been submitted, hence there is no chance of tampering with the prosecution evidence.

¶14

However, learned A.P.P. for the State submits that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R., hence, opposes the prayer for bail.

¶15

Be that as it may, considering the facts and circumstances and submission of the parties, since charge sheet has already been submitted, let the petitioner, above named, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna in connection with Jakkanpur P. S. Case No. 241 of 2016 with a condition that one of the bailors would be a close relative of the petitioner and the other bailor would have sufficient immovable property within the jurisdiction of the concerned police station/ Court .

¶16

(Nilu Agrawal, J)

¶17

Sudha/-

¶18

U T

Manoj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar 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

Shishu Pal Mistri Vs The State Of Bihar

Ganesh Rai Vs The State Of Bihar

Pintu @ Chintu @ Rajnish @ Chintu Sah Vs The State Of Bihar

Shailesh Prasad Vs The State Of Bihar

Rahul Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar

Guddu Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar