Allowed

Roshan Kumar @ Raushan Kumar v. the State of Bihar

Patna HC10 Jan 2022CR. MISC./17256/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Oral order granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a murder case pending investigation, citing third-wave COVID-19 pandemic and unsuitable jail conditions as grounds, with a direction to furnish regular bail bonds post-normalcy.

What did the court decide?

Released on anticipatory bail on personal bonds and directed to furnish regular bail bonds within eight weeks after normalcy is restored.

Roshan Kumar @ Raushan Kumar Vs the State of Bihar — Anticipatory Bail | Patna HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17256 of 2021

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-212 Year-2019 Thana- AMAS District- Gaya

¶3

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

¶4

ROSHAN KUMAR @ RAUSHAN KUMAR Son of Shiyaram Singh Resident of village - Yamuna, Police station - Imamganj, District - Gaya.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Gajendra Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Atul Chandra, APP ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶11

2 10-01-2022

¶12

Due to the third wave of COVID-19 Pandemic, the

¶13

matter is being taken up by way of Virtual Court proceeding.

¶14

The matter has been listed under the heading ‘For Orders’ under the orders of Hon’ble the Chief Justice.

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State through virtual mode.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove the defects, as pointed out by the Office, within a period of four weeks after restoration of normalcy.

¶17

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered under Section 395 of Indian Penal Code in which section 412 IPC was added later on.

¶18

The prosecution allegation, in short, is that the unknown accused persons looted trailor of the informant.

¶19

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17256 of 2021(2) dt.10-01-2022 2/3

¶20

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there is no allegation of tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. The petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. The name of the petitioner has transpired on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused. Except for this, there is no other substantive evidence to suggest his implication in the present case. There is no recovery of any incriminating articles from the possession of the petitioner. Other co-accused has been granted anticipatory bail vide Annexure-2 to the present application by a Coordinate Bench of this Court.

¶21

On behalf of the State, it is submitted that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R.

¶22

It is necessary to indicate here that this Court while considering the prayer made in the present anticipatory bail application has taken note of the exponential rise in number of covid cases due to outbreak of third wave of Covid-19 pandemic. Further this Court can also not lose sight of the fact that the condition of jails is not conducive and suitable to the present situation which has arisen due to the sudden rise in covid cases.

¶23

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the

¶24

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17256 of 2021(2) dt.10-01-2022 3/3

¶25

petitioner, above named, in the event of arrest/surrender before the learned court below within a period of twelve weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on his personal bonds to the satisfaction of learned A.C.J.M.. Sherghati, Gaya in connection with Amas P.S. Case No. 212 of 2019, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶26

Once the normalcy is restored, the petitioner shall furnish bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each within a period of eight weeks to the satisfaction of the Court concerned in connection with the aforesaid case.

¶27

(Sudhir Singh, J)

¶28

Pankaj/-

¶29

U T

Roshan Kumar @ Raushan Kumar v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roshan Kumar @ Raushan Kumar 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

Suresh Rout Vs the State of Bihar

Azad Yadav @ Azad Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Bhagwan Yadav @ Bhanu Pratap Singh @ Bhanu Pratap Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Tun Tun Yadav Vs the State of Bihar

Krishnakant Yadav Vs the State of Bihar

Raj Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Bihar