Vinay Ram @ Vinay Kumar Ram v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 10031 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-214 Year-2016 Thana- SAMASTIPUR MUFFASIL DistrictSamastipur ====================================================== VINAY RAM @ VINAY KUMAR RAM Son of Maheshwar Ram Resident of Village - Dadhiya Belar, P.S.- Mufassil, Dist.- Samastipur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ram Nibash Prasad :

Mr. Mukesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Anil Prasad Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 03-03-2020 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Mufassil PS case no. 214 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code. The allegation is regarding unknown miscreants having stolen one H.P. Water Pump of the brother of the informant. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and is having no complicity in the matter. It is further submitted, by referring to paragraphs no. 8 and 9 of the present petition that the stolen pump was recovered from the possession of the co-accused person namely Ajit Kumar and he is stated to have disclosed the name of the petitioner to be his accomplice, in his confessional statement made before the police. It

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 10031 of 2020(2) dt.03-03-2020 2/2 is submitted that since neither the alleged water pump has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner or his house nor there is any material on record to suggest his complicity in the matter, this Court may consider granting the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I deem it fit and appropriate to admit the petitioner to the privilege of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the abovenamed petitioner, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order, is directed to be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 5th Samastipur in connection with Mufassil PS case no. 214 of 2016 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure.

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) rinkee/- U T