Allowed

Surendra Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

Patna HC10 Dec 2014CR. MISC./44556/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal for bail in a robbery case under Section 392 IPC, the Court observed that only a part of the looted amount was recovered and the petitioner had no criminal record. Consequently, the petitioner was granted bail.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is enlarged on bail by furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamui.

Surendra Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar — Bail and Remand | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Criminal Miscellaneous No.44556 of 2014

¶3

	Arising Out of PS.Case No. -192 Year- 2014 Thana -JAMUI District- JAMUI ====================================================== Surendra Yadav Son of Bali Yadav Resident of Village- Rohtara, P.S.- Rohtara, District- Katihar.
	.... .... Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar
	.... .... Opposite Party ======================================================
	Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satya Prakash Parasar, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sharda Kumari (App) ======================================================
	CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER
2	10-12-2014 Heard both sides.
	The petitioner Surendra Yadav seeks bail in Jamui
	P.S. Case No. 192 of 2014, registered for the offences punishable
	under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶4

The informant alleged that he withdrew Rs. 30,000/from the bank and thereafter went to vegetable market to purchase vegetable. Two persons on Apache motorcycle snatched his bag containing money and fled away. Thereafter, the informant went to Kachahari Chowk and saw the same persons who had fled away after snatching his money, on such police came and apprehended the petitioner.

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the informant did not lodge the case after theft of money. Only Rs.

¶6

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.44556 of 2014 (2) dt.10-12-2014

¶7

¶8

3000/- was recovered from the possession of the petitioner although theft amount is Rs. 30,000/-.

¶9

Learned APP did not dispute the facts.

¶10

Considering the facts aforesaid and nature of allegation made against the petitioner and the fact that the petitioner has remained in jail for about five months and has no criminal antecedent, he above named is directed to be enlarged 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamui in connection with Jamui P.S. Case No. 192 of 2014.

¶11

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.)

¶12

KKSINHA/-

¶13

U T

Surendra Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bandhu Yadav @ Baudhu Yadav @ Bodh Yadav and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar

Akhilesh Rai @ Goleya @ Golu Rai @ Golu Vs The State Of Bihar

Manoj Rai @ Manoj Kr. Rai Vs The State Of Bihar

Bhulla Yadav @ Bhuara @ Bhura Vs The State Of Bihar

Anil Kumar Sahni Vs The State Of Bihar

Amrendra Kumar Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar