High Court Patna High Court - Orders

Afroz Alam vs State Of Bihar on 29 October, 2010

Patna High Court – Orders
Afroz Alam vs State Of Bihar on 29 October, 2010
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                            Cr.Misc. No.35410 of 2010
AFROZ ALAM s/o Md. Nijam, resident of village- Mahanth Maniyari, P.S.-
Maniyari, District- Muzaffarpur.... Petitioner.
                                      Versus
                               STATE OF BIHAR
                                     -----------

2. 29.10.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The prayer for bail of the petitioner was earlier

rejected by an order dated 7.11.2009 giving him liberty to

renew his prayer for bail after completing nine months of

further judicial custody.

Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

petitioner has completed such period of further nine

months of judicial Custody. As with regard to criminal

antecedent, counsel for the petitioner explains that there

was no criminal antecedent of the petitioner prior to

lodging of the instant case and in fact after he was

remanded in the criminal case, he has been remanded in

another case for offence under Sections 467, 468, 471 and

414/34 of the IPC being Maniyari P. S. Case No. 77 of

2009.

As the petitioner is in jail since 7.7.2009 and

claims to have only one more criminal case against him,

this Court would direct for release of the petitioner,
2

namely, Afroz Alam on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.

10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like

amount each to the satisfaction of Smt. Sangita Rani,

J. M. Ist Class, Muzaffarpur in connection with Kanti P.

S. Case No. 138 of 2009, G. R. No. 992 of 2009, Tr. No.

748 of 2010 in the event he is not found accused in any

third criminal case and subject to the following

conditions:-

(i) The two bail bonds will be furnished, one by

the Government servant and the other by a close family

relative.

(ii) The petitioner will remain present in course

of trial on each and every day and his absence even for a

single day would automatically entail the consequences of

cancellation of his bail.

(iii) The petitioner in case is now made accused

in any other criminal case, that would itself lead to

cancellation of his bail.

Subject to the aforementioned conditions, the

prayer for bail of the petitioner is allowed.

kanchan                           (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)