Deepak Yadav @ Golu Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.64164 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-89 Year-2020 Thana- LODIPUR District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== DEEPAK YADAV @ GOLU YADAV Son of Late Shyam Yadav Resident of Village- Babupur, P.S.- Sabour, District- Bhagalpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr.Madhuri Lata ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER 09-05-2022 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

Let the defect(s) be removed within two weeks of the complete start of the physical Court in normal course. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Lodipur P.S. Case No. 89 of 2020, for the offence punishable under Sections 392, 395 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case, in brief, is that some miscreants looted the mobile and money from the truck driver near Jhamshi High School after assaulting him.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in this case. The petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. He further submits that similarly situated co-accused

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64164 of 2021(2) dt.09-05-2022 2/3 Arun Dom and Raj Kumar Yadav have already been enlarged on bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.04.2021 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 6147 of 2021 and vide order dated 23.06.2021 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 7755 of 2021, respectively. The petitioner is in custody since 21.09.2020.

Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner.

Considering the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, without going into the merits of the case taking into consideration the period of custody undergone by the petitioner, the petitioner, above named, is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur in connection with Lodipur P.S. Case No. 89 of 2020, subject to the following conditions:-

(1) Bailors should be local having sufficient immovable property within the jurisdiction of the Court concerned.

(2) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64164 of 2021(2) dt.09-05-2022 3/3

(3) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses of the case, in that case, prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail of the petitioner.

(4) If the petitioner is found involved in similar nature of offence, after his release on bail, the trial Court shall take steps to cancel his bail bonds.

(5) The court below is directed to verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and if it is found that the petitioner is involved in some other cases as what has been stated in paragraph No.3 of the bail application, this order will automatically loose its force.

(6) The petitioner will make his attendance before the concerned Police Station under which his house is located every fortnight till conclusion of the trial and on any single default without any valid reasons on the part of the petitioner, his bail bonds shall be cancelled and the concerned SHO of the Police Station shall submit his monthly attendance report to the Superintendent of Police having jurisdiction.

(Purnendu Singh, J) manish/- U T