Amit Kumar @ Dhruv v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23957 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-13 Year-2025 Thana- TARIYANI CHOWK District- Sheohar ====================================================== Amit Kumar @ Dhruv Son Of Ramgayan Singh R/V -CHAK Husainpur PsRunnisaidpur Dist -SITAMARHI ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Singh, Adv.

Ms. Divya Bharti, Adv.

For the State :

Mr. Raj Kishor Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 21-05-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 317(4), 317(5), 111(4) of the B.N.S.

3. The allegation in the First Information Report is that stolen motorcycles have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner and other accused persons. Total 11 persons were arrested at the place of occurrence along with five motorcycles and subsequently two other motorcycles were recovered from other places at the instance of these accused persons.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as a

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23957 of 2025(3) dt.21-05-2025 2/3 matter of fact, there is no recovery of any motorcycle from the personal or conscious possession of the petitioner and rather the petitioner was caught by the police in confusion. It has further been submitted that on search of the co-accused, one master key was recovered from the possession of the co-accused Arjun Kumar, who has already been granted bail on 21.04.2025 in Cr. Misc. No. 18515 of 2025. It has further been pointed out that the petitioner, after his arrest, was made to confess before the police however, the said confessional statement before the police has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law. The entire process of search and seizure was also not done in accordance with law and there was no independent witnesses to the search and seizure. The petitioner is in custody since 14.01.2025 with no criminal antecedent.

5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the application for bail.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, let the above named petitioner, be enlarged on bail 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 court below where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Tariyani P.S. Case No. 13 of 2025, subject to

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23957 of 2025(3) dt.21-05-2025 3/3 the conclusion that:

(I) One of the bailors would be the family member or relative.

(II) The petitioner would appear physically on each and every date in the learned court below till the charges are framed.

(III) If the petitioner is found to be made an accused in similar nature of cases in the future, the learned court below would consider to cancel his bail bonds. (Soni Shrivastava, J) devendra/- U T