Sajan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.68365 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-92 Year-2024 Thana- MOKAMAH District- Patna ====================================================== 1.

Sajan Kumar Son of Yadunandan Ram @ Jadunandan Ram Residnet of Village -Hasanchak, Police Station- Harnaut, District- Nalanda at present residing at Village- Shivnar Ward No. 10, Police station -Mokama , District -Patna 2.

Rajan Kumar Son of Yadunandan Ram @ Jadunandan Ram Residnet of Village -Hasanchak, Police Station- Harnaut, District- Nalanda at present residing at Village- Shivnar Ward No. 10, Police station -Mokama , District -Patna 3.

Paro Devi Wife of Yadunandan Ram @ Jadunandan Ram Residnet of Village -Hasanchak, Police Station- Harnaut, District- Nalanda at present residing at Village- Shivnar Ward No. 10, Police station -Mokama , District -Patna 4.

Yadunandan Ram @ Jadunandan Ram Son of Dharam Ram @ Dharma Ram Residnet of Village -Hasanchak, Police Station- Harnaut, District- Nalanda at present residing at Village- Shivnar Ward No. 10, Police station -Mokama , District -Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Anita Devi Wife of Upendra Ram Residnet of Village- Shivnar Ward No. 10, Police station- Mokama , District -Patna ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ravi Shanker Pankaj, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 23-10-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offence under Sections 420/120(B)/379 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per F.I.R., these petitioners alongwith other accused persons are alleged to have stolen CNG Maxima-2

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68365 of 2024(2) dt.23-10-2024 2/3 Tempo of the informant.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence. It is not a case of theft, rather it is a money dispute. Petitioners and informant are close relatives. In fact, Informant/O.P.No.2 had purchased a tempo and handed over it to petitioner no. 1, as daily-wage, to drive, earn money and give to her (O.P.No.2). One day, the said tempo got some damage in an accident, whereupon petitioner no. 1 asked for money from O.P.No.2 for repairing and O.P.No.2 told him (petitioner no.1) to repair the tempo, but after repairing, she denied to return money to petitioner no. 1 and told him that money will be adjusted from his own income and thereafter, petitioner no.1 took the vehicle in his native area, but O.P.No.2, despite knowing this fact, filed this false and concocted case. Learned counsel further submits that money dispute was between petitioner no. 1 and O.P.No.2, but O.P.No.2 made accused to all family members. Petitioners claim clean antecedent.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the bail petition.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the above named petitioners, in the event of their

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68365 of 2024(2) dt.23-10-2024 3/3 arrest/surrender within a period of eight weeks from today, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Barh (Patna), in connection with Mokama P.S. Case No. 92/2024, subject to condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) anay U T