Sanjeev Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39119 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-98 Year-2021 Thana- KAHALGAON District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== SANJEEV KUMAR SON OF SUNIL URANV RESIDENT OF VILLAGEGANGULDAI, P.S.- KAHALGAON, DISTRICT- BHAGALPUR. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rajive Ranjan Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Satyendra Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 14-11-2022 Let the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, be removed within a period of four weeks from today. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Kahalgaon P.S. Case No. 98/2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 374, 414 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per prosecution case, on 07.02.2021 the informant parked his motorcycle near bus stand and went for saving. After sometimes, he saw that a boy alongwith another boy were taking away his motorcycle. The informant raised alarm with the help of nearby people, the petitioner and other were apprehended with motorcycle in question.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39119 of 2022(2) dt.14-11-2022 2/3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case due to high handness of the police official. The petitioner is languishing in custody since 08.02.2021 and bears no criminal antecedent. The petitioner was a vendor of the aforesaid place when he was requesting to remove the motorcycle in this regard and some dispute has been arisen, then, petitioner and other falsely dragged in this case. He further submits that from bare perusal of the FIR itself, it appears that for alleged recovery production cum seizure list was made, hence, no case of section 379 of the I.P.C. is made out against the petitioner. The learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, period of custody, argument advanced on behalf of both sides and keeping in view clean antecedent of petitioner and also taking into consideration the material available on record, let the petitioner above named be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bhagalpur in connection with Kahalgaon P.S. Case No. 98/2021, subject to following conditions:-

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39119 of 2022(2) dt.14-11-2022 3/3 (i) One of the bailors shall be either father or mother or sister or brother or wife or the person who has sworn the affidavit in bail application.

(ii) Petitioner will co-operate in trial and will remain present on all dates and absence for two consecutive dates without appropriate permission, would be a ground for cancellation of bail by the learned Trial court itself. (iii) 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.

(Alok Kumar Pandey, J) amitkumar/- U T