Fantush Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.46031 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-444 Year-2018 Thana- BIHARSHARIF District- Nalanda ====================================================== Fantush Yadav, Son of Karu Yadav, Resident of village- Vishanu Bagicha, P.S.- Khudaganj, District- Nalanda.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Pramod Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Sunil Kumar Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 25-09-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for State.

The petitioner in this case is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Bihar P.S. Case No.444 of 2018 registered for the offences punishable under Section 414/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case as according to him the motorcycle in question has not been recovered from his possession. Learned counsel submits that the name of this petitioner has transpired in the confessional statement of coaccused and he has no criminal antecedent. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case where this petitioner is not having any criminal antecedent and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46031 of 2019(3) dt.25-09-2019 2/2 the motorcycle in question has not been recovered from his possession as also that his name has transpired in the confessional statement of the co-accused, let the petitioner above named in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from today, be enlarged on bail on furnishing of bail bonds of Rs. 15,000/- (fifteen thousand ) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned C.J.M., Nalanda at Biharsharif in connection with Bihar P.S. Case No.444 of 2018, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C. i.e.

(i) a condition that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(ii) a condition that the person shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. arvind/- (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) U T