IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Cr.Misc. No.24562 of 2010
DHARMENDRA SAHNI
Versus
STATE OF BIHAR
---------
06/ 02.12.2010 Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make
necessary correction in paragraph 10 of bail petition.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned
P.P. for the State.
Admittedly, neither petitioner is named in the FIR nor in
statement of victim boy. It is also apparent from the submissions of
learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned P.P, that victim boy
has been recovered on the basis of disclosure made by another
accused and not by this petitioner. Furthermore, learned P.P, fairly
concedes this fact that ransom was demanded from a mobile which
belonged to one Amarjit Sahni and the said mobile set was being used
by one Dharmendra Sahni and not by the petitioner but the learned
Sessions Judge committed an error of record while passing the
impugned order.
It is admitted position that several co-accused have already
been granted privilege of bail. Sr. S.P, Muzaffarpur has reported that
petitioner has been made accused only in the present case and he does
not have criminal history of any other case which is evident from
letter of Sr. S.P, Muzaffapur vide letter no. 3205 dated 23.10.2010
which has been kept at flag ‘B’.
In the aforesaid circumstances, petitioner (Dharmendra
Sahni) is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs
-2-
10,000-/ with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction
of 7th Addl. Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in Sessions Trial
no.930/2009 arising out of Motipur P.S. Case no. 68/2009.
shahid (Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J)