Pampam Singh @ Pampam Yadav @ Singh Jee v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.1818 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -51 Year- 2015 Thana -PIPRA District- SUPAUL ====================================================== Pampam Singh @ Pampam Yadav @ Singh Jee, son of Bhudev Kumar Singh, Resident of Village- Raghunathpur, P.S. Bhargama, District Araria. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate Mr. Binod Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Madhura Nand Jha (APP-102) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 16-02-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Pipra P.S Case No. 51 of 2015 registered for the offence punishable under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of Arms Act. Allegedly, three motorcycle borne criminals stopped the motorcycle of the informant near Amha Canal and putting them in fear of death robbed Rs. 32,150/- and also snatched the key of motorcycle and fled away through canal on their bike. In the meantime, the brother of the informant also reached there and informed that a businessman has also been robbed and he was also sustaining fire arm injury on his leg.

Submission is of false implication and that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R, he is in custody since 07.12.2015 but he has not been put on T.I.P., nothing has been recovered from possession of the petitioner and his name has

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.1818 of 2017 (3) dt.16-02-2017 2/2 come in the confessional statement of co-accused Lalan Yadav and Manish Yadav, confessional statement of co-accused have got no evidentiary value in the eye of law and besides that there is no other legal material against the petitioner.

Learned A.P.P. submits that co-accused have taken the name of the petitioner in their confessional statement and the petitioner has got criminal antecedent also.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering that besides confessional statement there is no other material against the petitioner and, as such, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on execution of bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri Jitendra Kumar, learned J.M. 1st Class, Supaul, in connection with Pipra P.S. Case No. 51 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 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.) Rajiv/- U T