AJAY v. The State of Bihar
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : For the Opposite Party/s : ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Advocate. Ms.Indu Kumari Srivastava, APP. ORAL ORDER 2 17-08-2022 Heard Mr. Rajeev Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Indu Kumari Srivastava, learned APP for the State. The present modification application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for modification of the condition no.1 imposed vide order dated
13.05.2022 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 4114 of 2022 that bailors should be local having sufficient immovable property within the jurisdiction of the court concerned. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is resident of Uttar Pradesh, hence he could not comply the condition no.1 imposed vide order dated 13.05.2022. Considering the fact that the petitioner is an under trial and has been granted the benefit of privilege of bail by this Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40377 of 2022(2) dt.17-08-2022 Court, the condition no.1 imposed vide order dated 13.05.2022 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 4114 of 2022 is modified to the extent that one of the bailors shall be a family member of the petitioner and another bailor shall be a close relative. Other conditions imposed vide order dated 13.05.2022 shall remain effective. Accordingly, the present modification application stands disposed of. (Purnendu Singh, J) mantreshwar/- U T
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.