Ankit Kumar Rai @ Babu @ Ankit Kumar Roy v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33201 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-130 Year-2023 Thana- KISHANGANJ District- Kishanganj ====================================================== Ankit Kumar Rai @ Babu @ Ankit Kumar Roy Son of Gopal Ray Resident of Village- Majhiya Road, Dharamganj, P.S- Kishanganj, District -Kishanganj ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ram Prawesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mrs.Sharda Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 21-06-2024 Heard Mr.Ram Prawesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.Sharda Kumari, learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 28.03.2023 in connection with Kishanganj P.S. Case No. 130 of 2023, giving rise to S.Tr.No.193 of 2023, F.I.R. dated 28.03.2023 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 413,414/34 of IPC.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant along with police personnel on 28.03.2023 at about 4:00 A.M. was on patrolling and received information that many people are buying and selling stolen goods at Ankit Kumar's house and when police team reached there then 7-8 persons ran away from his house but one person was present and on asking his name he

2/4 told Gopal Rai who is father of Ankit Kumar. During search total 196 goods recovered but no document was produced by him. The police team inquired about the recovered goods from Gopal Rai he told that my son Ankit Kumar and other persons including the petitioner bring stolen goods and distributed in my house.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. It appears from the FIR that the petitioner was not arrested from the spot and nothing has been recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner and till date no TIP has been conducted by the prosecution and co-accused persons, namely, Kadir Perwez @ Kadir, Gopal Ray, Nehal Kumar Roy @ Nihal Kumar Ray and Raj Sharma @ Shiva Sharma @ Pochu Sharma have been granted bail by different Coordinate Benches of this Hon'ble Court vide orders dated 14.09.2023, 13.12.2023 and 17.02.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. Nos.58617 of 2023, 80078 of 2023 and 7588 of 2024 respectively. Further submits that the police, after investigation, submitted chargesheet against the petitioner and the petitioner is in custody since 28.03.2023.

5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner carries

3/4 seven more cases other than the present one.

6. Considering the aforesaid fact and period of custody, 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 learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-1st, Kishanganj in connection Kishanganj P.S. Case No. 130 of 2023, giving rise to S.Tr.No.193 of 2023, with the following conditions:- (I) 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/her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his/her bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. (II) 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.

(III) 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

4/4 shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

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