Chintu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.50882 of 2015 (2) dt.05-01-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.50882 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -93 Year- 2014 Thana -RUPASPUR District- PATNA ======================================================

1. Chintu Kumar S/o Sukhdeo Ravidas, resident of village- Parsa Bazar, P.S.- Phulwari Sharif, District- Patna, at present resident of Bhattaper, P.S.- Rupaspur, District- Patna .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Narendra Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Madhuranand Jha(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 05-01-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. representing the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Rupaspur P.S. Case No. 93 of 2014 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 380, 457, 411 of the Indian Penal Code. Allegedly un-known thief committed theft in the shop of the informant and took away cash of Rs. 800 and two piece photo frame of Lovely company and further committed theft in the shop and gumti of Anil Prasad Singh and Kailash Prasad and took away cash of Rs. 4500/- and other shop articles and during investigation, the petitioner was apprehended with iron rod and screwdriver and the petitioner confessed his guilt and on his confession two photo frames of lovely company were recovered. Submission is of false implication and nothing has

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.50882 of 2015 (2) dt.05-01-2016 been recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner, he has been made victim of police atrocity, the alleged photo frame has not been recovered from possession of the petitioner and the petitioner is suffering in custody since 08.05.2014. Chargesheet has already been submitted and there is no chance of tampering with the prosecution evidence.

The learned A.P.P. fairly submits that considering the detention of the petitioner now he may be released on bail. In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering the detention of the petitioner now the petitioner, above named, is directed to be released on bail on execution of bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Learned J.M. 1st Class, Danapur arising out of Rupaspur P.S. Case No. 93 of 2014 subject to the conditions that one of the bailors must be near relative and another having sufficient immovable property within the territorial jurisdiction of the court concerned 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) sushma/- U