Allowed

Surendra Prasad Das @ Sikandar Das @ Sikander v. the State of Bihar

Patna HC3 Dec 2021CR. MISC./23637/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted bail to the petitioner, accused in a murder case, after accepting counsel's submission that the petitioner was incorrectly named in the FIR and noting identical bail in similar cases, while imposing standard surety conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on furnishing a bond of the principal amount of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of a like amount each.

Surendra Prasad Das @ Sikandar Das @ Sikander Vs… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Patna HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No 23637 of 2021

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-214 Year-2020 Thana- AMARPUR District- Banka

¶3

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

¶4

SURENDRA PRASAD DAS @ SIKANDAR DAS @ SIKANDER S/O LATE BHUTTI DAS RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MAINMA PS AMARPUR, DISTRICT-BANKA.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr Praveen Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr Rajendra Prasad Nat, APP

¶10

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

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD

¶12

ORAL ORDER

¶13

4 03-12-2021

¶14

This case has been taken up today for consideration through Video Conferencing.

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor (for brevity, APP ) appearing for the State of Bihar.

¶16

The petitioner seeks bail in Amarpur Police Station (for brevity, PS ) Case No 214 of 2020 instituted for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34, 120B of Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of Arms Act.

¶17

Informant has alleged that her husband was taken away by co-accused Bipin, Kalu and Sujesh for availing his barber services. Thereafter, he has not returned. Dead body has been recovered.

¶18

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23637 of 2021(4) dt.03-12-2021 2/3

¶19

Petitioner’s counsel submits that one of the persons, who allegedly had taken away the informant’s husband, is the son of the petitioner. On such basis, petitioner, having no criminal antecedent, has been implicated in this case. Referring to the column of accused persons in the First Information Report (for brevity, FIR ), it is submitted that petitioner is not named accused person and the order of Additional Sessions Judge III, Banka, in so far as it has recorded that the petitioner is named in the FIR, is an error of record. Two other persons, similarly situated, namely, Vidio Das and Jitendra Das have been allowed bail by this Court in Cr Misc No 30142 of 2020 by order dated 27.11.2020 whereas the petitioner continues to be in custody since 14.12.2020.

¶20

Learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶21

Having considered the rival submissions, this Court, for the purposes of grant of bail, is inclined to accept the submissions advanced by the petitioner’s counsel. Prayer for bail is allowed. Let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on his furnishing bonds of Rs 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banka in connection with Amarpur PS Case No 214 of 2020 subject to the following

¶22

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23637 of 2021(4) dt.03-12-2021 3/3

¶23

conditions:-

¶24

(i) That one of the bailors will be a close relative of the petitioner who will give an affidavit giving genealogy as to how he is related with the petitioner. The bailor will also undertake to inform the Court if there is any change in the address of the petitioner.

¶25

(ii) That the petitioner will be well represented on each date and if he fails to do so on two consecutive dates, his bail bond will be liable to be cancelled.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner is expected to honour his undertaking given in the instant proceedings today for depositing requisite Court fee and removing the defect (s), as pointed out, when called upon to do so.

¶27

(Madhuresh Prasad, J)

¶28

M.E.H. /-

¶29

U T

Surendra Prasad Das @ Sikandar Das @ Sikander v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Prasad Das @ Sikandar Das @ Sikander 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

Md. Shahid Ali Vs the State of Bihar

Santosh Mishra Vs The State of Bihar

Ankit Kumar Pathak Vs the State of Bihar

Krishan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Avinash Rai @ Abinash Kumar Vs the State of Bihar

Sako Rajbanshi Vs The State of Bihar