Randhir Yadav @ Randhir Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66536 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-53 Year-2020 Thana- RAGHOPUR District- Supaul ====================================================== Randhir Yadav @ Randhir Kumar Yadav Son of Girdhar Yadav Resident of Village - Pasarama, Ward No.07, P.S.- Raghopur, Distt.- Supaul. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar.
... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Patla Kumari For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Rajendra Prasad Nat ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 25-04-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
Let the defects, as pointed out by the office, be removed within four weeks of start of normal functioning of the physical court.
Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.
According to prosecution case, the informant filed written report before the police station alleging therein that he is presently working in L&T Finance Raghopur as a field officer. It is further alleged that on 07.03.2020 he collected the loan amount from seven center of total Rs. 1,54,900/- and return back to his office from motercycle. It is further stated that he
2/4 reached near Tilawedhar bridge his motorcycle was blockade by two person who already on pulsar motorcycle and one person oust key of his motorcycle. It is further alleged that another person snatched his bag from back and in the snatched bag all collected amount of Rs.1,54,900/- and one finger print machine and fled away by motorcycle.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that is not named in the F.I.R. and the name of the petitioner has been transpired on the basis confessional statement of co-accused namely, Sonelal Yadav and Md. Rais @ Md. Rahis. He further submits that till date no TIP has been conducted by the prosecution. He further submits that similarly situated, co-accused, namely, Ranjeet Ram @ Laltu Ram @ Ranjit Kumar has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 07.04.2022 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 57308 of 2021, another co-accused namely Sonelal Yadav @ Sonu Kumar has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 25.02.2022 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 60768 of 2021, another co-accused namely, Md. Rais @ Md. Rahis has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 01.04.2022 passed in Cr. MIsc. No. 62881 of 2021. The petitioner is in custody since 17.03.2021.
3/4 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner carries four criminal antecedents other than the present one.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court below where the case is pending in connection with Raghopur P.S. Case No. 53 of 2020, subject to the following conditions:-
1. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
2. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.
3. And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the
4/4 petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) mdrashid/- U T