Patna High CourtCR. MISC./24374/2022bail granted

Pintu Kumar Bhagat @ Pintu Kumar Sah v. The State Of Bihar

2022-09-27Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24374 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-209 Year-2022 Thana- FORBESGANJ District- Araria ====================================================== Pintu Kumar Bhagat @ Pintu Kumar Sah Son of Shiv Kumar Sah Resident of village - Maheshwari (Dakshin), Ward No. - 17, P.S.- Jogbani, Dist.- Araria ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ramesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Satya Nand Shukla. A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 27-09-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to remove the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, if any, within a period of four weeks from today.

Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code and further added Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution case, on 26.02.2022, when the informant was going from his shop where his son Prince Kumar and staffs were present in the shop, two miscreants entered into shop and on gun point causing life danger has looted away Rs. 30,000/- from cash counter and Rs. 40,000/- from cash chamber and fled away.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24374 of 2022(3) dt.27-09-2022 2/3 petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that in fact the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and the name of the petitioner has been transpired on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused person namely, Eido @ Eid. He further submits that till date no T.I.P. has been conducted by the prosecution and Rs. 18,240/- has been recovered from the cash counter of the shop of the petitioner. He further submits that the same amount belongs to the petitioner and except the confessional statement of the co-accused person, no cogent material has come during investigation against the petitioner and the police after investigation submitted the charge sheet against the petitioner. He further submits that similarly situated, co-accused, namely, Santosh Kumar Das has been granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.08.2022 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 29350 of 2022. The petitioner is in custody since 06.03.2022.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioner, above named, be released 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 Court below where the case is pending in connection with Forbesganj P.S. Case No.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24374 of 2022(3) dt.27-09-2022 3/3 209 of 2022, subject to the following conditions:-

1. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.

2. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

3. And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) vanisha/- U T