Raju Kushwaha @ Raju Kumar Kushwaha v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4738 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-338 Year-2019 Thana- HARSIDHI District- East Champaran ====================================================== RAJU KUSHWAHA @ RAJU KUMAR KUSHWAHA S/o Late Asharfi Kushwaha Resident of Village- Champapur, P.S.- Ramgardhwa, Distt- East Chamapran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Jitendra Kumar Miss. Supriya Rani For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Manoj Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 23-01-2020 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.

The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Harsidhi P.S. Case No. 338 of 2019, registered for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation is regarding the pickup van of the informant having been stolen by unknown miscreants and subsequently, the same is said to have been recovered from the shop of the co-accused person, namely, Pramod Kumar. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that though the petitioner is accused in two other cases, but he is on bail in the said two cases. It is further submitted that the petitioner is languishing in custody since

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4738 of 2020(2) dt.23-01-2020 2/2 28.10.2019. Lastly, it is submitted that neither any recovery has been made from the possession of the petitioner nor from his house nor from his shop and the recovery of the stolen pickup van has been made from the shop of the co-accused person, namely, Pramod Kumar, hence, there is no impediment in grant of regular bail to the petitioner. Per contra, the learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, coupled with the fact that no recovery of stolen pickup van has been made from the possession of the petitioner or from his house or from his shop, I deem it fit and proper to direct for release of the petitioner on regular bail.

Accordingly, the above named petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned CJM East Champaran at Motihari in connection with Harsidhi P.S. Case No. 338 of 2019. (Mohit Kumar Shah, J) Ajay/- U T