Dilip Pathak v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.52340 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -223 Year- 2014 Thana -GANDHIMAIDAN District- PATNA ======================================================

1. Dilip Pathak son of Nand Kumar Pathak resident of Village Sri Rampur, Police Station - Bihta, District - Patna.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gajanan Mishra For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. R.B.Roy Raman(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL ORDER 14-12-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A. P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case No. 223 of 2014 registered for offences punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case is that the informant, who is owner of the shop alleged that one bundle aluminium sheets, value Rs. 13,000/- was missing from his shop. It is alleged that his staff Dilip Pathak and Vikrant Kumar and one Manjar Yadav are responsible for the missing of aluminium bundle. It is further alleged that accused Manjar Yadav disclosed to informant that at the instance of two staffs namely, Dilip Pathak and Vikrant Kumar he had carried aluminium bundle to the shop of M/S Gupta Aluminium Decorator.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the confessional statement of Manjar Yadav, who

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.52340 of 2015 (3) dt.14-12-2015 2/2 stated that the petitioner and to accused Vikrant Kumar asked him to remove the aluminium sheets on the assurance that he would get commission. The name of the petitioner transpired on the confessional statement of accused Manjar Yadav and confessional statement of co-accused has no evidentiary value in the eye of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent as is evident from para-3 of the petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to deposit 50% of the value of the Aluminum sheets, amounting to Rs. 6,500/- within a month to the informant.

Considering the aforesaid facts, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from today before the Court below be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs, 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned A.C.J.M., Patna in connection with Gandhi Maidan P. S. Case No. 223/2014, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(Nilu Agrawal, J) Sudha/- U T