Pradyum Kumar @ Praduman Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.25470 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -181 Year- 2016 Thana -AADAPUR DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ====================================================== Pradyum Kumar @ Praduman Kumar, S/o Deenanath Prasad, Resident of Village- Uchidih, P.S.- Adapur (Harpur), District- East Champaran. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. B.N. Pandey, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 14-06-2017 Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.N. Pandey, learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with Adapur (Harpur) P.S. Case No. 181 of 2016 for offence registered under Section 394 and 411 of Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a bare perusal of the First Information Report shows that while the motorcycle, in question, was snatched from one Nurain Mian, while he was going to his home after attending his duty, the present F.I.R. has been lodged after two days by the Branch Manager. The petitioner is not named in the F.I.R., however, it is alleged that he disclosed the name of one Khalid from whom the motorcycle, in question, was recovered. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner is a mechanic and, therefore, several motorcycles used to come in his

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25470 of 2017 (3) dt.14-06-2017 2/2 garage for repairing purposes and, therefore, he gets knowledge, but in no case, he has participated in the alleged occurrence. He is in custody for about seven months, but there is no T.I. Parade and the name of the petitioner has been brought by the Police on suspicion alone. He further submits that in the earlier case also he was not named and has already been granted bail. A supplementary affidavit has been filed stating therein that in Palanwa P.S. Case No. 57 of 2016 also though he is not named, but he has been taken on remand. Learned A.P.P. opposed the prayer for bail, however, it is not denied that the petitioner is in jail for seven months and no T.I. Parade of the petitioner has been conducted.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the petitioner is in custody for seven months and no T.I. Parade has been conducted, this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the S.D.J.M. Raxaul at Motihari in connection with Adapur (Harpur) P.S. Case No. 181 of 2016, subject to the condition under Section 437 (3) Cr.P.C. and that the petitioner shall cooperate in the trial. In case of two regular defaults in appearance, the bail bond of the petitioner shall be cancelled by the Court below. (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) manish/- U T