Pintu Kumar Chaupal @ Pintu Chaupal v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16331 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-166 Year-2019 Thana- BHARGAMA District- Araria ====================================================== Pintu Kumar Chaupal @ Pintu Chaupal, Male, aged about 30 years, Son of Ramdev Chaupal @ Ramdeo Chaupal, Resident of Village Bengwahi Ward No.1, P.S. Raniganj, District Araria.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar.
... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Anil Prasad Singh For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Navin Kumar Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 02-07-2020 Heard Mr. Anil Prasad Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Navin Kumar Pandey, the learned Additional P.P. through video conferencing.
The petitioner seeks bail in Bhargama P.S. Case No.166 of 2019, registered under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code.
The informant alleged that he parked his truck bearing Registration No.HR38L4536 and he was sleeping but four persons came on two motorcycles, assaulted the informant and snatched Rs.9,000/- and all the documents of the vehicle, mobile and tape etc. of the informant. The motorcyclists fled away towards East.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16331 of 2020(3) dt.02-07-2020 2/3 absolutely no evidence against the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested on 18.10.2019 and since then he is in custody but the petitioner has not been put on TIP. During the course of investigation the witnesses, namely, Dhanik Lal Sharma and Kiro Sharma in para 19 and 20 of the case diary disclosed that the petitioner and others were moving around in the night on two motorcycle and on such the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected by the learned court below. Nothing has been recovered from possession of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner deserves bail.
The learned Additional P.P. opposed the prayer for bail.
It appears that the petitioner is not named in the FIR. During the course of investigation, the petitioner was arrested and remanded in this case but the petitioner has not been put on TIP. The Investigating Officer did not collect any material to show that the petitioner committed any robbery with the driver of the truck. No any incriminating article was recovered from possession of the petitioner. The petitioner was not even put on TIP although the petitioner is in jail for about 81⁄2 months. Considering the facts aforesaid, petitioner, namely, Pintu Kumar Chaupal @ Pintu Chaupal is directed to be
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16331 of 2020(3) dt.02-07-2020 3/3 enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Araria in connection with Bhargama P.S. Case No.166 of 2019. (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) S.KUMAR/- U T