Rahul Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.58615 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -121 Year- 2015 Thana -DALSINGHSARAI District- SAMASTIPUR ======================================================
1. Rahul Kumar Son of Manoj Jha R/o Village Ram Nagar, P.S. Sakara, District Muzaffarpur .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Mustaque Alam(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 09-03-2016 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned A.P.P for the State.
The petitioner seeks bail in a case for the offence punishable under section 420 of the I.P.C Allegedly, Shiv Nandan Das, the brother of the informant, went at Canera Bank A.T.M at Dalsinghsarai where one unknown young boy cunningly exchanged A.T.M. card and thereafter from the account of Shiv Nandan Das amount of Rs. 3,40,000/- was withdrawn in several transactions and from the C.C.T.V. Camera footage the informant identified the petitioner who was arrested by the police.
Submission is of false implication and that the informant has not gone in the ATM with his brother, the brother of
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.58615 of 2015 (3) dt.09-03-2016 2/3 the informant has not filed this case, the petitioner has not been put on the test identification parade, the informant is not the competent witness who can identify the real culprits, the victim brother of the informant has not been examined during investigation, the confessional statement of the petitioner has been recorded after adopting third degree method and as such the petitioner who is suffering in custody since 27.09.2015 deserves sympathetic consideration, to which the learned A.P.P. opposes by submitting that from the photo of the CCTV footage of that ATM the petitioner has been identified and the petitioner has confessed his guilt also.
In the facts and circumstances as stated above, considering that brother of the informant who is the victim has not been examined during investigation, the petitioner has not been put on the test identification parade and as such considering detention of the petitioner, now he is directed to 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 A.C.J.M. Dalsinghsarai, District- Samastipur in Dalsinghsarai P.S. Case No. 121 of 2015, subject to the conditions that one of the bailors must be a near relative and another having sufficient immovable property within the territorial jurisdiction of the court concerned
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.58615 of 2015 (3) dt.09-03-2016 3/3 and the petitioner shall remain present on each and every date during trial and the default on two consecutive dates on his part without any reason shall disentitle the petitioner from privilege of bail.
(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) Abhay/- U T