Allowed

Sandip Kumar @ Sandeep Kumar @ Sandeep Kumar Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC25 Jun 2020CR. MISC./9023/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Patna granted provisional bail to the petitioner charged under the IPC and Arms Act. Considering the investigation was concluded without a T.I. parade and the COVID-19 pandemic, provisional bail was allowed for three months with an undertaking on an Aadhar copy. This provisional bail is to be confirmed on furnishing a full bond with two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on provisional bail for three months on furnishing one surety via undertaking (Aadhar copy) to be confirmed on bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties.

Sandip Kumar @ Sandeep Kumar @ Sandeep Kumar Yadav Vs The… — Bail and Remand | Patna HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9023 of 2020

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-177 Year-2019 Thana- DANAPUR District- Patna

¶3

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

¶4

SANDIP KUMAR @ SANDEEP KUMAR @ SANDEEP KUMAR YADAV Son of Shivanath Yadav Resident of Village - Reganiyadeeh, P.S. Sigori, District - Patna.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar Bihar

¶8

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ajay Kr Singh No.1 For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Jagdhar Prasad ======================================================

¶9

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶10

3 25-06-2020

¶11

The matter has been taken up through virtual

¶12

Court proceeding.

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶14

learned counsel for the State.

¶15

The petitioner is languishing in custody since

¶16

03.03.2019 in a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code

¶17

and Sections 25(1-B)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act.

¶18

It appears that vide order dated 03.03.2020, a

¶19

report with regard to the stage of the trial was called for

¶20

by a Co-ordinate bench of the Court, the office notes dated 29.05.2020 reflects that the report with regard to

¶21

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9023 of 2020(3) dt.25-06-2020 2/5

¶22

the stage of the trial is not received in view of the fact that the Court proceeding is not functional in physical mode due to extraordinary circumstance created by the present Pandemic COVID-19, hence the matter is being heard on the joint prayer of the parties, on the basis of materials available on the record.

¶23

The prosecution case as per the written report of Satish Kumar Singh, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police to the S.H.O., Danapur is to the fact that on 03.03.2019, when the informant along with other police personnel were on morning patrolling, he received an information that cash and mobile phone of one Amarjeet Kumar have been snatched by three scooty borne persons. Subsequently, the informant reached at the place of occurrence and inquired from Amarjeet Kumar who conveyed that his mobile and rupees four hundreds were snatched by three persons travelling on scooty. Thereafter, three persons were located standing nearby with the scooty at a place who were identified by

¶24

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9023 of 2020(3) dt.25-06-2020 3/5

¶25

Amarjeet. On seeing the police, all of them started fleeing away and two persons managed to escape from the scene when one person was apprehended who disclosed his name as Sandeep Kumar, the petitioner and he also disclosed the name of the other two persons

¶26

as co-accused Majhal @ Lav and Kallu and from the possession of the petitioner, one country made pistol, one live cartridge and one mobile phone were recovered.

¶27

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that only on basis of suspicion, the petitioner has been roped in the present case. Neither the alleged money nor the mobile phone of the informant was recovered from the possession of the petitioner and he has falsely been framed in the present case. It is further submitted that neither the recovered mobile phone nor

¶28

the petitioner has been put on T.I. Parade and investigation has already been concluded. It is further submitted that co-accused Kallu @ Vikash Kumar and Manjhal @ Lav have been granted bail by Co-ordinate

¶29

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9023 of 2020(3) dt.25-06-2020 4/5

¶30

benches of this Court vide Cr. Misc. Nos. 85052 of 2019 and 44464 of 2019 respectively.

¶31

Learned A.P.P. submits that petitioner was apprehended near the place of occurrence and one country made pistol and live cartridge were recovered from the possession of the petitioner.

¶32

Considering the fact that petitioner was not put on test identification parade and this fact has not been controverted by the learned A.P.P. and investigation being concluded, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail, for the present, provisionally for a period of three months on furnishing one surety to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, I, Danapur in connection with Danapur P.S. Case No. 177 of 2019.

¶33

However, in view of the present pandemic COVID-19, it will be open for the learned Court below to accept the bail bond on furnishing an undertaking by the surety, on photo copy of his Aadhar Card to the effect

¶34

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9023 of 2020(3) dt.25-06-2020 5/5

¶35

that he is ready to become the bailor of the petitioner which may be transmitted by such surety to the learned Court concerned through e-Mode.

¶36

The provisional bail of the petitioner will be confirmed by the learned Court below within three months on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-(ten thousands) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Danapur in connection with Danapur P.S. Case No. 177 of 2019 including one surety given at the time of provisional bail.

¶37

The learned Court below will be at liberty to further extend the period of provisional bail if the Court proceeding in physical mode will not resume in next three months.

¶38

(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J)

Sandip Kumar @ Sandeep Kumar @ Sandeep Kumar Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandip Kumar @ Sandeep Kumar @ Sandeep Kumar 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

Uma Shankar Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Abu @ Abuzar Vs The State of Bihar

Kunal Kumar Singh @ Kunal Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Dharmendra Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Ajay Kumar Bhagat Vs The State of Bihar

Suraj Kushwaha @ Suraj Choudhary @ Suraj Prakash Vs The State of Bihar