Allowed

Raju Mukhiya v. the State of Bihar

Patna HC12 Sept 2022CR. MISC./17175/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court disposed of three criminal miscellaneous petitions seeking bail in a theft case (PS. Case No. 113 of 2021, Begusarai). The court released the petitioners on bail by furnishing bonds of Rs. 20,000 each with two sureties, subject to standard conditions including presence in court.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail of Rs. 20,000 each with two sureties of like amount, subject to specific conditions.

Raju Mukhiya Vs the State of Bihar — Bail and Remand | Patna HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66480 of 2021

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-113 Year-2021 Thana- BEGUSARAI MUFFASIL DistrictBegusarai

¶3

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

¶4

Ranjit Sah, Son of Late Janak Sah, Resident of Village Neula, P.S. Bhagwanpur, District - Begusarai at present resident of Malhar, P.S. Gwal Pokhar, District North Delajpur ( West Bengal).

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

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

¶10

with

¶11

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 70597 of 2021

¶12

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-113 Year-2021 Thana- BEGUSARAI MUFFASIL DistrictBegusarai

¶13

====================================================== Ganesh Patel, Son of Late Narayan Patel, Resident of village - Naula, Ward No.- 12, P.S.- Bhagwanpur, District - Begusarai.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶18

====================================================== with

¶19

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 17175 of 2022

¶20

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-113 Year-2021 Thana- BEGUSARAI MUFFASIL DistrictBegusarai

¶21

====================================================== Raju Mukhiya, S/o Late Bhagwat Mukhiya, Resident of Village- Mathahi, P.S.- Madhepura, District- Madhepura.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 66480 of 2021) For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Neeraj Kumar Alias Sanidh, Advocate For the State : Mr.Vinod Shanker Modi, APP For the Informant : Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 70597 of 2021) For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sandip Kumar Gautam, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Braj Kishore Pd.(App), APP

¶26

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66480 of 2021(3) dt.12-09-2022 2/5

¶27

(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 17175 of 2022) For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Neeraj Kumar Alias Sanidh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Anant Kumar 1, APP ======================================================

¶28

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER

¶29

3 12-09-2022

¶30

Since all the applications arise out of Begusarai Muffasil P.S. Case No. 113 of 2021, as such, they have been taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order.

¶31

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant.

¶32

Let the defect (s), as pointed out by the office, be removed within a period of four weeks from the date of resumption of physical filing and physical removal of defect.

¶33

In the present case, the petitioners seek bail in connection with Begusarai Muffasil P.S. Case No. 113 of 2021 registered for the alleged offences under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶34

As per prosecution case, a theft was committed in the dwelling house of the informant and the unknown thieves took away a number of articles from the house of the informant including ornaments and jewellary worth Rs. 25,00,000/-. The informant showed the suspicion that his elder daughter-in-law might be involved in this occurrence.

¶35

The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the

¶36

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66480 of 2021(3) dt.12-09-2022 3/5

¶37

petitioners are not named in the FIR and they have been falsely implicated in this case. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from their person or possession. The name of the petitioners transpired in this case on the basis of confessional statement of petitioner Ganesh Patel. It has been submitted that during investigation, the police came to know about a vehicle belonging to the son of the petitioner Ganesh Patel which was seen moving suspiciously and further from the tower location of three mobile numbers whose locations were found near the place of occurrence, the petitioner Ganesh Patel was apprehended and his confessional statement was recorded. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners are not the holders of the mobile numbers whose location has been stated to be near the place of occurrence. Confessional statement of the petitioner has got no value in the eyes of law. Petitioner Ranjit Sah is in custody since 10.08.2021, petitioner Raju Mukhiya is in custody since 06.12.2021 and petitioner Ganesh Patel is in custody since 28.05.2021, respectively. Charge-sheet has been submitted against them.

¶38

Learned APP as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant vehemently opposes the prayer for bail. Learned counsel for the informant submits that the tower

¶39

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66480 of 2021(3) dt.12-09-2022 4/5

¶40

location of the mobile phones of the petitioners were found near the place of occurrence and they are residents of different places and convergance of their mobile numbers at the same place shows their complicity in the alleged occurrence. Learned counsel further submits that there is no certainty about the residential address of the petitioners and due to this reason, trial would be delayed if the petitioners are enlarged on bail. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners are habitual offender and large number of cases pending against them.

¶41

Perused the records.

¶42

Having regard to the submissions made hereinabove and considering their period of custody along with the submission of charge-sheet against the petitioners, the petitioners above named are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 20,000/- (twenty thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai, in connection with Begusarai Muffasil P.S. Case No. 113 of 2021, subject to the conditions mentioned in Section 437(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also the following conditions :

¶43

(i) The bail bond of the petitioners will be accepted only after framing of charge, if not

¶44

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66480 of 2021(3) dt.12-09-2022 5/5

¶45

already framed.

¶46

(ii) One of the bailors will be a close relative of the petitioners.

¶47

(iii) The petitioners will remain present on each and every date fixed by the court below.

¶48

(iv) In case of absence on three consecutive dates or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bonds of the petitioners will be liable to be cancelled by the court concerned.

¶49

(Arun Kumar Jha, J)

¶50

balmukund/-

¶51

U T

Raju Mukhiya v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju Mukhiya 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

Ramesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Rajesh Tewari @ Rajesh Tiwari @ Naresh Tiwari Vs The State of Bihar

Ramesh Tewari @ Ramesh Tiwari Vs the State of Bihar

Sajan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Chandan Kumar Vs the State of Bihar

Sanjay Roy Vs The State of Bihar