Sujeet Kumar Singh @ Sujeet Singh @ Aditya Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.9418 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -96 Year- 2015 Thana -DARPA DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ======================================================

1. Sujeet Kumar Singh @ Sujeet Singh @ Aditya Kumar son of Jay Mangal Singh, resident of Village- Tinkoni, P.S.- Darpa, District- East Champaran. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhishek Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajendra Pd.Nat(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 18-04-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Darpa P.S. Case No. 96 of 2015 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 399, 400, 402, 414 of the Indian Panel Code and Section 25(1-b)A/26/35 of the Arms Act. The prosecution case is that on a secret information received by the police that some miscreants assembled at the house of one Shambhu Sharan Prasad and the dacoity is likely to be committed in the house of one Binda Sonar, the police organized raid on 26.12.2015 in which Shambhu Sharan Prasad, Motilal Paswan and Ranjan Kumar Yadav @ Chandan Kumar Yadav were apprehended. Certain illegal arms are said to be recovered from their conscious possession. So far as the petitioner is concerned he is said to be

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9418 of 2016 (3) dt.18-04-2016 2/2 one of the persons who ran away from the place of occurrence. Subsequently, his name was given on the basis of the confessional statement of co-accused Shambhu Sharan Prasad which is not admissible as evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the said implication of the petitioner was because of some political rivalry and not otherwise.

Considering the aforementioned facts and circumstances that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and also one other similarly situated person who has run away from the place of occurrence has been extended the privilege of anticipatory bail in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 10477 of 2016 vide order dated 08.03.2016, let the petitioner, in the event of his arrest / surrender within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the each amount to the satisfaction of the learned SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Raxaul at Motihari, East Champaran in connection with Darpa P.S. Case No. 96 of 2015, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.

(Anjana Mishra, J) ajaypd./- U T