The High Court at Patna, in an oral order, directed the petitioner's release on bail bailable bond conditions attached to Section 394 IPC case. The court noted lack of recovered evidence against the accused.
Petitioner directed to be released on bail by executing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.48556 of 2015
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -34 Year- 2013 Thana -AMAS District- GAYA
====================================================== Ramashish Yadav S/o Narayan Yadav resident of Village - Korap, P.S. Anti, District - Gaya .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rakesh Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. S.Dayal(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 3 28-01-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. representing the State. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Amas P.S. Case No. 34 of 2013 registered for the offence punishable under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code.
Allegedly in Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank Chandisthan, four un-known miscreants committed robbery and took away cash of Rs. 4,10,750/- and further snatched other document also. During investigation name of the petitioner transpires in the confessional statement of co-accused Rakesh Kumar @ Lulha and further co-accused Raviranjan @ Chhotu also confessed his guilt stating the name of the petitioner.
Submission is of false implication and that the petitioner is in custody since 20.09.2014, he has not been put on
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.48556 of 2015 (3) dt.28-01-2016
2/2
TIP, besides confessional statement there is nothing against him, nothing has been recovered from possession of the petitioner and, as such, he deserves sympathetic consideration as co-accused Rakesh Kumar @ Lulha, who has named the petitioner, has already been allowed bail vide order dated 26.06.2015 passed in Cri. Misc. No. 17666 of 2015.
The learned A.P.P. fairly submits that besides confessional statement, there is nothing against the petitioner.
In the facts and circumstances stated above, the petitioner, above named, is directed to be released on bail on execution of bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Sherghatty, Distt. Gaya arising out of Amas P.S. Case No. 34 of 2013 subject to the conditions that one of the bailors must be near relative and another having sufficient immovable property within the territorial jurisdiction of the court concerned and the petitioner shall remain present on each and every date during trial and the default on two consecutive dates on his part without any reason shall disentitle the petitioner from privilege of bail.
(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J)
sushma/U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 394 IPC given the confessional statements of co-accused.
Whether the petitioner satisfies the conditions for bail and execution of a proper bond.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ramashish Yadav
State of Bihar
Jitendra Mohan Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
