Allowed

Saddam Nut @ Saddam Hussain v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC8 Jan 2021CR. MISC./30991/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the petitioner in a robbery case under Section 392 IPC, directing his release upon furnishing bonds and depositing cash, noting his prolonged custody without initial naming in the FIR.

What did the court decide?

Release of the petitioner on bail by furnishing bonds of Rs.50,000 with two sureties and depositing Rs.50,000 cash in the court.

Saddam Nut @ Saddam Hussain Vs The State of Bihar — Bail and Remand | Patna HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30991 of 2020

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-408 Year-2017 Thana- MAIRWAN District- Siwan

¶3

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

¶4

Saddam Nut @ Saddam Hussain, Son of Sarfudin Nut, Resident of VillageSabeya, P.S.- Mirganj, District- Gopalganj.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Y. C. Verma, Sr. Advocate Mrs. Kumari Anupam, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : None ======================================================

¶7

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY

¶8

ORAL ORDER

¶9

2 08-01-2021

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appears on behalf of the State, although the name of Advocate General appears in the cause list.

¶11

The petitioner is in custody in connection with Mairwa P.S. Case No. 408 of 2017 for the offence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶12

In the instant case, motorcyclists, in the age group of 24-25 years, snatched gold chain from the wife of the informant and a mobile phone and Rs.10,000/- cash from the informant.

¶13

Mr. Y. C. Verma, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the F.I.R. was lodged against unknown and only because of the bad character of the petitioner, he has been made accused in the present case. He further submits that neither the petitioner was named in the F.I.R. nor anything was recovered from his possession. The petitioner is in custody since

¶14

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30991 of 2020(2) dt.08-01-2021 2/2

¶15

15.04.2020, yet he has not been put on T.I.P.

¶16

Considering the fact that the petitioner was not named in the F.I.R. and he has remained in custody for about nine months, the petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-X, Siwan in connection with Mairwa P.S. Case No. 408 of 2017 subject to the condition that the petitioner shall deposit Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousand) cash in the court below and the same shall be abide by the final outcome in the trial i.e. if the petitioner is acquitted the amount of Rs.50,000/- shall be refunded in favour of the petitioner, otherwise it shall be forfeited.

¶17

(Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J)

¶18

uday/-

¶19

U T

Saddam Nut @ Saddam Hussain v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saddam Nut @ Saddam Hussain 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Shankar Prasad Vs The State of Bihar

Kailasho Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Pankaj Mandal @ Pankaj Kumar Mandal Vs The State of Bihar

Rajesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Budhan Sahni @ Budhan Sahani Vs The State of Bihar

Guddu Prasad @ Guddu Kumar Vs the State of Bihar