Allowed

Guddu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

Patna HC16 Dec 2016CR. MISC./52380/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Patna discharged the petitioner Guddu Kumar on bail in connection with a Section 387 IPC case, specifically noting that the charge sheet was already submitted. Bail was granted subject to conditions regarding sureties and appearance before the court.

What did the court decide?

Release of petitioner on bail on furnishing bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties, subject to conditions of appearance and close relative surety.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.52380 of 2016

¶2

Arising Out of PS.Case No. -86 Year- 2016 Thana -PAKRIDAYAL DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI)

¶3

====================================================== Guddu Kumar, son of Mosafir Sah, resident of Village- Pakarideyal, P.S.Pakarideyal, District- East Champaran.

¶4

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar

¶7

.... .... Opposite Party/s

¶8

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Atul Chandra, APP

¶9

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL ORDER

¶10

2 16-12-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶11

learned APP for the State.

¶12

Petitioner is languishing in custody since 12.07.2016 in connection with Pakarideyal P.S. Case No. 86/16 for offences punishable under Section 387 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

The prosecution case, as lodged by the informant, is that he got a ransom call for depositing Rs. 5 lakhs by a particular mobile number.

¶14

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is not named in the First Information Report, no overt act has been committed by him and he has no criminal history. It is submitted that the mobile number stated by the

¶15

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.52380 of 2016 (2) dt.16-12-2016

¶16

2/2

¶17

informant does not belong to him and that charge-sheet has already been submitted, hence, there is no chance of tampering with the prosecution evidence.

¶18

However, learned APP for the State opposes the

¶19

prayer for bail.

¶20

Be that as it may, since charge-sheet has already been submitted, let petitioner, above named, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Sikrahana at Dhaka, East Champaran, in connection with Pakarideyal P.S. Case No. 86/16.

¶21

This direction of bail is, however, subject to the condition that one of the bailors should be the close relative of the petitioner and the other bailor should have sufficient immovable property within the jurisdiction of the concerned police station/ court and that the petitioner will appear before the learned court below on each and every date and failure to appear on two consecutive dates without assigning any reason will entail cancellation of his bail bonds.

¶22

(Nilu Agrawal, J.)

¶23

Rajesh/-

¶24

U T

Guddu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guddu 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

Manoj Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar

Rahul Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar