Allowed

Sonu Kumar @ Rajesh @ Rajesh Jha v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC1 Aug 2022CR. MISC./13672/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application regarding Sections 120(B), 392, and 411 IPC was allowed. The court noted the recovery was made from an open place, not conscious possession, the petitioner had clean antecedents, and the investigation was complete, granting bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Direction to release the petitioner on bail on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties of the like amount, subject to specified conditions.

Sonu Kumar @ Rajesh @ Rajesh Jha Vs The State of Bihar — Bail and Remand | Patna HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13672 of 2022

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-32 Year-2021 Thana- ANGARGHAT District- Samastipur

¶3

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

¶4

SONU KUMAR @ RAJESH @ RAJESH JHA Son of Gaya Prasad @ Rama Prasad Resident of Machuatoli, near Santoshi Maa Mandir, P.S.- Kadamkuan, District- Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Devi Das Srivastava, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Akbar Ali, APP ======================================================

¶9

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA

¶10

ORAL ORDER

¶11

3 01-08-2022

¶12

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

¶13

Let the defect(s), if any, be removed within a period of four weeks from today.

¶14

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Angarghat P.S. Case No. 32 of 2021 registered for the offence under Sections 120 (B), 392 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

The accused/petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and is in custody since 10.06.2021.

¶16

The allegation against the petitioner is to commit robbery and while committing so, taken away bolero pickup van of the informant.

¶17

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner

¶18

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13672 of 2022(3) dt.01-08-2022 2/3

¶19

submitted that informant is the owner of the vehicle, which was seized under excise law, as it was carrying cough syrup, having contraband, namely, 'codeine', this petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case with oblique motive to save himself from prosecution. It is submitted that alleged vehicle, which is the subject of robbery, recovered from open place and as such, it cannot be said that the alleged recovery has been made from the conscious physical possession of the petitioner. It is also submitted that petitioner is a man of clean antecedent. While concluding the argument, it is submitted that investigation of this case has been completed, for which, charge-sheet has already been submitted, as such, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence.

¶20

Learned APP duly assisted by learned counsel for informant, opposes the prayer of bail.

¶21

Considering the facts and circumstances as mentioned above, as the recovery of vehicle cannot be said from conscious physical possession of the petitioner, who is a man of clean antecedent coupled with the fact that charge-sheet has already been submitted, let the petitioner, above named, is directed to be released on bail in connection with Angarghat P.S. Case No. 32 of 2021 on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten

¶22

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13672 of 2022(3) dt.01-08-2022 3/3

¶23

Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned A.C.J.M. 2^nd Dalsingh Sarai/concerned court, subject to the following conditions:

¶24

“(i)Accused/Petitioner shall cooperate in the trial and shall be physically present on each and every date before the Trial Court till conclusion of the trial and exemption from physical appearance be allowed by the Trial Court, only on medical ground of the petitioner duly supported by the documents.

¶25

(ii) That one of the bailors shall be Shubham Kumar, who is the brother of the petitioner and deponent of the present bail petition.”

¶26

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)

¶27

S.Katyayan/-

¶28

U T

Sonu Kumar @ Rajesh @ Rajesh Jha v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu Kumar @ Rajesh @ Rajesh Jha 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

Ibrar @ Ibrar Khan @ Avrar @ Avrar Khan Vs The State of Bihar

Arun Gupta Vs The State of Bihar

Ranjeet Mandal Vs the State of Bihar

Bittu Kumar @ Bittu Kumar Pandit @ Subham Kumar @ Shubham Vs The State of Bihar

Vikash Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Jhunna Kumar Vs the State of Bihar