Ravish Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5586 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1052 Year-2019 Thana- NAGAR District- Vaishali ====================================================== Ravish Kumar S/O Kishun Deo Singh Resident of Village- Mathura, P.S.- Bidupur, District- Vaishali.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Ashok Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Umanath Mishra, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 05-07-2022 Let the defects, if any, be removed within four weeks from today.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered in connection with Hajipur Town P.S.Case No.1052 of 2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 397, 412, 201, 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
As per the prosecution case, it is alleged that on 23.11.2019 while the informant, who happens to be the Branch Manager of Muthut Finance Company, along with other staffs were discharging their duty, in the meantime, 67 unknown miscreants entered into the office and on the
2/4 point of pistol looted 55.777 KG Gold and cash of Rs. 50,000/- and fled away. It is further submitted that they also took away mobiles of the staff and guard.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that FIR has been instituted against unknown persons. However, during the course of investigation, the police apprehended one Mukul Rai & Priya Ranjan on whose confession the name of this petitioner has transpired. It is further submitted that no incriminating material has been recovered from person or possession of this petitioner and moreover, petitioner is in custody since 31.07.2021 but till date he has not been put on TIP. It is further submitted that save and except the confessional statement of coaccused, no material has come which suggests the complicity of the petitioner in the present crime. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the bail application of the petitioner and submits that petitioner is found involved in four other cases. In response to the aforesaid contention learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is on bail in all the four cases.
3/4 Having heard the rival contentions of the parties and taking into consideration the fact that FIR has been instituted against unknown persons and during the course of investigation, the name of petitioner has been transpired on the confession of co-accused and moreover, other similarly, situated persons, whose name has also been transpired on the confessional statement have been granted bail by different Benches of this Court. Apart from the fact petitioner is in custody since 31.07.2021, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Hajipur in connection with Hajipur Town P.S.Case No. 1052 of 2019 subject to the condition that one of the bailors will be the close relatives of the petitioner with further conditions which are as follows:- (i) The petitioner will cooperate in conclusion of the trial.
(ii) He will remain present on each and every date of trial till disposal of the case.
(iii) He will not try to tamper with the evidence or
4/4 intimidate the witnesses to delay the disposal of trial. (iv) In the event of default of two consecutive dates without any cogent reason, his bail bonds will liable to be cancelled.
(v)The Court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage, it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancelling of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above- mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification. (Harish Kumar, J) N.K/- U T