Allowed

Sunil Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

Patna HC9 May 2018CR. MISC./26906/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 364A IPC, the High Court of Patna enlarged the petitioner on bail after observing that co-accused had already been granted bail despite the prosecution's objection regarding identification in the trial.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was enlarged on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of similar amount subject to specific conditions regarding appearance in court.

Sunil Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar — Cheating and Forgery | Patna HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.26906 of 2018

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-62 Year-2017 Thana- BOCHHA District- Muzaffarpur

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Sunil Kumar, S/o Rambabu Rai, Resident of Village- Roshi, P.S.- Bochaha, District- Muzaffarpur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mahendra Thakur, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Indu Kumari Srivastava, APP ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL ORDER

¶11

2 09-05-2018

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶13

learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶14

The petitioner had earlier prayed for bail, which was rejected vide order dated 11.10.2017 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 39507 of 2017. Petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 25.04.2017 in connection with Sessions Trial No. 466 of 2017, arising out of Bochaha P.S. Case No. 62 of 2017 registered for the offence punishable under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

The prosecution case, as lodged by the informant, is that his son Om Ankur Prajapati, a student of Class-IX went to school, but did not return. Thereafter, a call was made for a ransom of Rs. 7 lakhs.

¶16

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the

¶17

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26906 of 2018(2) dt.09-05-2018 2/3

¶18

petitioner that he is innocent, bears no criminal history, the victim boy has been recovered and in the statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. he has not named the petitioner. He further submits that the co-accused, who had been named by the victim boy, has since been granted the privilege of bail by this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 36846 of 2017 vide order dated 22.08.2017. He submits that just because he is the driver of Ravi Kumar in whose house the victim boy was found tied with the rope, he has been made accused in the present case. He submits that even the co-accused, Ravi Kumar has been granted the privilege of bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 13055 of 2018 vide order dated 18.04.2018. He submits that charges have already been framed and the petitioner undertakes to cooperate in trial on day-to-day basis.

¶19

However, learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for bail stating therein that during Test Identification Parade, petitioner has been identified.

¶20

Be that as it may, considering the facts and that other co-accused have already been granted the privilege of bail, let the petitioner, named above, 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

¶21

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26906 of 2018(2) dt.09-05-2018 3/3

¶22

A.D.J. 7^th , Muzaffarpur in connection with Sessions Trial No. 466 of 2017, arising out of Bochaha P.S. Case No. 62 of 2017, subject to the conditions that:

¶23

(1) Both the bailors would be close relative of the petitioner having sufficient immovable properties, who will file an affidavit stating their relationship with the petitioner.

¶24

(2) 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.

¶25

(Nilu Agrawal, J.)

¶26

Arjun/-

¶27

U T

Sunil Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil 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

Sonu Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar

Ramesh Ram Vs The State Of Bihar

Mantu Sah Vs The State Of Bihar

Sanjay Singh Vs The State Of Bihar

Aman Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Bihar

Bilendra Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar