Kumod Kumar Das @ Kumod Yadav @ Kumod Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.51021 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -82 Year- 2016 Thana -BHARGAWAN District- ARRARIA ====================================================== Kumod Kumar Das @ Kumod Yadav @ Kumod Kumar, S/o Jugesh Das @ Jugesh Yadav, Village- Jahad, P.S.- Bhargama, District- Araria. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kundan Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Binod Kumar 3, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL ORDER 29-11-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

Petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 30.07.2016 in connection with Bhargama P.S. Case No. 82 of 2016 registered for the offence punishable under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution case, as lodged by the police party, is that during patrolling duty, they got tip-off that three persons are running away with stolen motorcycle. Police reached there and caught the pillion rider and other two managed to escape. The apprehended co-accused, Guddu Kumar Yadav @ Guddu Yadav revealed the name of the petitioner and other co-accused. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.51021 of 2016 (2) dt.29-11-2016 2/3 petitioner that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the aforesaid case. He submits that confessional statement of co-accused, Guddu Kumar Yadav @ Guddu Yadav has no evidentiary value in the eye of law and that nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. He further submits that in another case, in which he has been made accused, is not regarding stolen motorcycle, but regarding a mobile of which he claims to be the owner for which he files a supplementary affidavit enclosing the seizure-list of aforesaid Raniganj P.S. Case No. 143 of 2016 by way of Annexure-3. However, learned A.P.P. for the State submits that the petitioner is named in the First Information Report, hence, opposes the prayer for bail.

Be that as it may, considering the facts and circumstances, let the petitioner, above named, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri Amit Kumar Manu, learned Additional Chief Judicial MagistrateII, Araria in connection with Bhargama P.S. Case No. 82 of 2016. However, this direction for bail is further subject to the condition that petitioner shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.51021 of 2016 (2) dt.29-11-2016 3/3 the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence and shall appear in the learned Court below, as and when directed.

With these observations and directions, this application stands allowed.

(Nilu Agrawal, J.) Arjun/- U T