Allowed

Chintu Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC2 Sept 2022CR. MISC./33496/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Oral order granting regular bail to the accused in a robbery and theft case pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai, upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties and compliance with specific court directions.

What did the court decide?

Enlargement of petitioner on bail by furnishing Rs. 25,000 bond with two sureties of the like amount with specified conditions.

Chintu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Bail and Remand | Patna HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33496 of 2022

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-627 Year-2021 Thana- BEGUSARAI MUFFASIL DistrictBegusarai

¶3

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

¶4

Chintu Kumar, Son of Shambhu rai @ Snambhu Ray Resident of VillageSikanderpur, Ward no. 06 Rajaura, P.s. Muffasil, District - Begusarai.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sandip Kumar Gautam, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Md. Ataur Rahman, A.P.P. ======================================================

¶9

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH

¶10

ORAL ORDER

¶11

2 02-09-2022

¶12

Heard Mr. Sandip Kumar Gautam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Md. Ataur Rahman, learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶13

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

¶14

The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No. 627 of 2021, for the offence punishable under Sections 392 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code and later on Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code has been added.

¶15

As per the prosecution case the informant has alleged against 4 unknown miscreants who committed robbery and forcibly robbed vehicle registration no. BR09GB2728, Oppo mobile phone and Rs. 20,000/ as well as 2,500 liters of Ganga Dairy Milk.

¶16

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33496 of 2022(2) dt.02-09-2022 2/3

¶18

submits that the petitioner has been implicated in the present case on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused Nitish Kumar and on the basis of said confessional statement one mobile has been recovered from said co-accused Nitish Kumar and the vehicle was recovered along roadside. The petitioner has made specific statement in paragraph 8 that no looted article which has been alleged to have been belonging to the informant such as ATM, Aadhar Card, mobile phone or the vehicle have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner or from any of the member of the family of the petitioner or from the house of the petitioner. Petitioner has remained in custody since 28.01.22. Chargesheet has already been submitted.

¶19

Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶20

Considering the nature of allegation made against the petitioner in the F.I.R and also in view of the specific statement in paragraph 8 of the bail application that no recovery of any looted article has been made from the conscious possession of the petitioner. The Chargesheet has been submitted and petitioner has remained in custody since 28.01.22, the petitioner, above named, is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned

¶21

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33496 of 2022(2) dt.02-09-2022 3/3

¶22

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai in connection with Mufassil P.S. Case No. 627 of 2021 ,subject to the following conditions:-

¶23

(1) Bailors should be local having sufficient immovable property within the jurisdiction of the Court concerned.

¶24

(2) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court.

¶25

(3) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses of the case, in that case, prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail of the petitioner.

¶26

(4) If the petitioner is found involved in similar nature of offence, after his release on bail, the trial Court shall take steps to cancel his bail bonds.

¶27

(5) The court below is directed to verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and if it is found that the petitioner is involved in some other cases as what has been stated in paragraph No.3 of the bail application, this order will automatically loose its force.

¶28

(Purnendu Singh, J)

¶29

manish/aditya

¶30

U T

Chintu Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chintu 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

Suraj Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Ravindra Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Gorakh Yadav @ Surendra Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Ravi Kumar Vs the State of Bihar

Asha Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Rajiv Pratap Singh Vs The State of Bihar