Allowed

Kamlesh Kumar v. the State of Bihar

Patna HC3 Aug 2022CR. MISC./19224/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In criminal miscellaneous proceedings challenging bail denial, the Court, considering FIR delay and bail of co-accused, ordered petitioner's release on bail with strict conditions. The underlying charges involved robbery and extortion under the Indian Penal Code.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail bond of Rs. 15,000 with two sureties subject to conditions of monthly appearance and non-tampering.

Kamlesh Kumar Vs the State of Bihar — Cheque Dishonour | Patna HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19224 of 2022

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-162 Year-2021 Thana- RUNISAIDPUR District- Sitamarhi

¶3

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

¶4

KAMLESH KUMAR, S/o Laxman Rai Resident of Village- Bhandari, P.S.Belsand, Dist- Sitamarhi.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mrs. Namrata Mishra, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Mohammad Sufyan, APP ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER

¶11

2 03-08-2022 Heard Mrs. Namrata Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

¶12

Let the defect(s) be removed within four weeks of the complete start of the physical Court in normal course.

¶13

The petitioner is in judicial custody in connection with Runnisaidpur P.S. Case No.162/2021 instituted under Sections 394 and later 412 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

The allegation in the FIR is that when the informant was returning home from his shop the accused persons overtook his motorcycle and demanded money. Upon protest, it is alleged that the accused opened fire causing injury to him as a result whereof he became unconscious. When he regained consciousness, he found himself in the hospital and realized that he has been looted of Rs.22,000/- as also his daily earning of Rs.5000/-. Accordingly, the FIR came to be instituted.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case is

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19224 of 2022(2) dt.03-08-2022 2/3

¶17

of 02.03.2021 whereas the FIR was lodged on 12.03.2021. No reason for the said inordinate delay has been explained in the FIR, casting aspersion on the prosecution story. She further submits that although the petitioner has been remanded in this case on 26.10.2021, no T.I. Parade has been done. She lastly submits that two of the similar situate co-accused namely Ankit Jha @ Ankit Kumar and Ravi Rauniyar @ Ravi Kumar @ Amrendra Kumar have since been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Benches of this Court vide Cr. Misc. No.49108/2021 (disposed of on 17.12.2021) and Cr. Misc. No.62451/2021 (disposed of on 13.04.2022) respectively.

¶18

Let the said orders be kept on record.

¶19

Taking into account the aforesaid averment made by the counsel for petitioner, considering the delay in the lodging of the FIR as also that charge-sheet stands submitted, is in custody since 26.10.2021 (as stated in para-11 of the bail application) and that some other co-accused as stated above have been enlarged on bail, this Court is inclined to release the petitioner on bail but with certain conditions in view of the fact that he has criminal antecedent.

¶20

Let the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.15,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each in connection with Runnisaidpur P.S. Case No.162/2021 to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi, subject to following conditions:

¶21

(i) one of the bailor should be the family member of the

¶22

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19224 of 2022(2) dt.03-08-2022 3/3

¶23

petitioner, who shall provide official document to show his/her bona fide;

¶24

(ii) the petitioner shall appear on each and every date before the Trial court and failure to do so for two consecutive dates without plausible reasons will entail cancellation of his bail by the Trial court itself;

¶25

(iii) the petitioner shall appear before the concerned police station every month for next six months to mark his presence;

¶26

(iv) the petitioner shall in no way try to induce or promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidence, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of his bail bonds;

¶27

(v) the petitioner shall desist from committing any criminal offence again failing which the State shall be at liberty to steps for cancellation of his bail bonds.

¶28

With the aforesaid observations, the bail application is allowed.

¶29

(Rajiv Roy, J)

Kamlesh Kumar v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamlesh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jitendra Kumar @ Jitendra Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Bihar

Ashok Singh @ Ashok Kumar @ Ashok Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Arbind Kumar @ Arbind Sah Vs The State of Bihar

Nand Kumar Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Bharat Baitha Vs The State of Bihar

Malti Devi Vs The State of Bihar