Pintu Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.22331 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -67 Year- 2015 Thana -BARUN District- AURANGABAD ======================================================

1. Pintu Yadav son of Rajendra Yadav Resident of Village Jurabganj, Police Station Kodha, District Katihar.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Babita Kumari For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. B.M.P Sinha (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 24-05-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. representing the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Barun P.S. Case No. 67 of 2015 registered for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegedly, two motorcycle born criminals snatched the bag containing cash of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the informant which he has withdrawn from State Bank of India, Aurangabad Branch. Submission is of false implication and that the petitioner is not named in the First Information Report, nothing has been recovered from his conscious possession and only on the basis of confessional statement made before the police, the petitioner has been implicated which is evident from the impugned order

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22331 of 2016 (2) dt.24-05-2016 2/2 itself and besides that there is no other legal and tangible material against the petitioner, the petitioner without any fault is suffering in custody since 12.11.2015.

The learned APP opposes the prayer of bail by submitting that the petitioner has got criminal antecedent. In the facts and circumstances stated above, the petitioner, above named, is directed to be released on bail on execution of bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad in connection with Barun P.S. Case No. 67 of 2015, G.R. No. 880 of 2015 subject to the conditions that one of the bailors must be near relative and another having sufficient immovable property within the territorial jurisdiction of the court concerned and the petitioner shall remain present on each and every date during trial and the default on two consecutive dates on his part without any reason shall disentitle the petitioner from privilege of bail.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) sushma/- U T