Allowed

Suraj Kumar @ Bibhishan Thathera v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC8 Dec 2020CR. MISC./23118/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court granted regular bail to a petitioner accused of robbery (Section 392 IPC), noting he had been in custody for over three years while similarly situated co-accused received bail. The court observed charges were not yet framed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on regular bail with bond of Rs. 25,000 and two sureties under specified conditions

Suraj Kumar @ Bibhishan Thathera Vs The State of Bihar — Bail and Remand | Patna HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23118 of 2020

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-43 Year-2017 Thana- KINJAR District- Jehanabad

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Suraj Kumar @ Bibhishan Thathera, Male, aged about 26 years, son of Pallu Thathera, Police Station- Ghoshi (Okari), District- Jehanabad.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance :

¶10

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Birendra Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Akshay Lal Pandit ======================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER

¶12

5 08-12-2020 Heard Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsel for the

¶13

petitioner and Mr. Akshay Lal Pandit, learned counsel appearing for the State through video conferencing.

¶14

Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Kinjar P.S. Case No. 43 of 2017 registered for the offence under Section 392 of the I.P.C.

¶15

The allegation as per the First Information Report is that 04 unknown persons intercepted a truck bearing Registration No. HR-55L-4539 loaded with 560 bags of Maida each weighing 50 K.G. and looted the truck along with the loaded materials.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has not committed any offence in the manner alleged and he has falsely been implicated in this case on the basis of

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23118 of 2020(5) dt.08-12-2020 2/3

¶18

confessional statement made by the co-accused / Pankaj Kumar. Learned counsel further submits that no incriminating material or looted article has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner and the petitioner has been remanded in this case from Tehta (Makhdumpur) P.S. Case No. 90 of 2017 on 14.06.2017 and since then he is in custody. Learned counsel further submits that similarly situated co-accused persons have been granted bail by this court and court below in Cr. Misc. No. 53093 of 2017 and B.P. No. 448 of 2017.

¶19

This court by its order dated 06.11.2020 had called for a report from the court below regarding the progress of the trial and in pursuance thereof learned I/c Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate Arwal vide its letter no. 53 dated 12.11.2020 has furnished report and from perusal of the same it appears that charges against the petitioner has not been framed as yet as such examination of witnesses has not commenced.

¶20

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the materials available on record and the fact that similarly situated accused persons have been granted bail by this court and the petitioner is in custody since 14.06.2017 i.e. for more than 03 years, I am inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner.

¶21

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23118 of 2020(5) dt.08-12-2020 3/3

¶22

Accordingly, let the petitioner, above named, be released on regular bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/(twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned S.D.J.M., Arwal in connection with Kinjar P.S. Case No. 43 of 2017 on the following conditions:-

¶23

(i) that one of the bailors shall be the local resident of the territorial jurisdiction of the learned trial court.

¶24

(ii) that the petitioner shall remain present on each and every date during the course of trial and in case of default on two consecutive dates on the part of the petitioner, his bail bond shall liable to be cancelled.

¶25

It is made clear that at the time of furnishing bail bond all the parties shall follow the guidelines regarding social distancing.

¶26

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)

¶27

praful/-

¶28

U T

Suraj Kumar @ Bibhishan Thathera v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj Kumar @ Bibhishan Thathera 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

Hiralal Vishwkarma Vs The State of Bihar

Ram Ekbal Rajbhar @ Ram Ekbal Vs The State of Bihar

Rudal Bind @ Rudal Chauhan Vs The State of Bihar

Pradeep Kumar Yadav @ Pradeep Yadav @ Pradip Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Anil Kora Vs The State of Bihar

Bipin Das Vs The State of Bihar