Paramjeet Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22204 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-311 Year-2020 Thana- MURLIGANJ District- Madhepura ====================================================== PARAMJEET YADAV S/O RAJU YADAV R/O VILLAGE- RAJANI, JAMUA PARA, P.S.- MURLIGANJ, DISTRICT- MADHEPURA. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Md. Shakir Ahmad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 08-10-2021 Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.

The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in a case registered under section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the prosecution case, three accused persons on the point of arms looted the informant of his belonging as also his motorcycle as described in the F.I.R. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the F.I.R. was registered against three unknown. The name of the petitioner transpired in course of investigation. Referring to the order of the learned court below, it is submitted that the reason for rejection of the application for bail of the petitioner is the contents of the paragraph no. 24 of the case diary wherein it

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22204 of 2021(2) dt.08-10-2021 2/2 has been stated that the police recovered the stolen motorcycle from the possession of this petitioner. It is submitted that it is a clear error of record in view of the seizure list at page no. 13 which is part of the F.I.R. from which it would transpire that the motorcycle was recovered from the possession of accused Nitesh Kumar and not the petitioner. In any case, the petitioner is in custody since 12.10.2020 and chargesheet has been submitted in the case without putting him on T.I. parade. Heard learned A.P.P. for the State.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, the material on record together with the petitioner having remained in custody for over 11 months, the Court directs the petitioner to be enlarged on bail in connection with Murliganj P.S. Case no.311 of 2020 on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/ (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate II, Madhepura.

(Partha Sarthy, J) Saurabh/- U T