High Court Patna High Court - Orders

Pappu Paswan vs State Of Bihar on 29 June, 2010

Patna High Court – Orders
Pappu Paswan vs State Of Bihar on 29 June, 2010
                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                             Cr.Misc. No.21909 of 2010
                                     PAPPU PASWAN
                                          Versus
                                    STATE OF BIHAR
                                        -----------

2. 29.6.2010 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the State.

The petitioner is in custody in connection with

S.T. No. 484 of 2010 arising from Barhara P.S. Case No.

77 of 2009 for offence punishable under Section 302 of

the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently Sections 328 and

120B was added to the set of charges.

Learned counsel for the petitioner with

reference to the statement of allegation as set out in the

FIR submits that the petitioner is neither named therein

nor any allegation has been set out against him.

Learned counsel further submits that the informant

himself has mentioned that his mother-in-law informed

him that Co-accused Gajju Paswan has administered

‘Rogar’ mixed water to his son Mithun Rishideo and

Budhan Rishideo, stating it to be toddy.

Learned counsel thus submits that in absence

of any allegation against the petitioner, he has been

wrongfully involved in the present proceeding merely on

suspicion, the basis of a threatening said to have been

given by him some time back.

2

Taking into consideration the circumstances

and submissions of learned counsel, let the petitioner,

namely, Pappu Paswan be released on bail on

furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand)

with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction

of the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.- 6, Purnea ,

in connection with S.T. No.484/2010 (arising out of

Barhara P.S. Case No. 77/2009), subject to the

condition that the petitioner would ensure his

representation in the trial on each and every date fixed

and upon failure on his part to ensure his

representation in the Court on two consecutive dates

without reasonable explanation to the satisfaction of the

Court below would confer liberty to the Court

concerned, to initiate proceeding for cancellation of his

bail bonds and for taking him into custody.

Anand Kr.                                                ( Jyoti Saran, J.)