Allowed

Rahul Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC11 Jan 2022CR. MISC./33686/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner apprehending arrest in a robbery case (Section 395 IPC), directing surrender before the lower court. Bail was conditional upon the removal of F.I.R. defects within four weeks and furnishing bond within eight weeks after normalcy.

What did the court decide?

Released on anticipatory bail on personal bonds with conditions to remove F.I.R. defects within four weeks and furnish bail bond within eight weeks after normalcy.

Rahul Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Anticipatory Bail | Patna HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33686 of 2021

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-18 Year-2020 Thana- PATORI District- Samastipur

¶3

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

¶4

RAHUL KUMAR Son of Mahesh Singh Resident of Village - Harpur Belba, P.S.- Mahua, Distt.- Vaishali.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ansul For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Khurshid Anwar, APP ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH

¶11

ORAL ORDER

¶12

2 11-01-2022

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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.

¶18

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code..

¶19

The prosecution allegation, in short, is that the unknown accused persons looted Rs. 10.71 lacs from L.I.C. Branch.

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33686 of 2021(2) dt.11-01-2022 2/3

¶21

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. 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 in the present case merely on the basis of suspicion as it is evident from the order of the Sessions Court. 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.

¶22

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

¶23

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.

¶24

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the

¶25

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33686 of 2021(2) dt.11-01-2022 3/3

¶26

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. -IV, Samastipur in connection with Patori P.S. Case No. 18 of 2020, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶27

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.

¶28

(Sudhir Singh, J)

¶29

Pankaj/-

¶30

U T

Rahul Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul 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

Tun Tun Yadav Vs the State of Bihar

Roshan Kumar @ Raushan Kumar Vs the State of Bihar

Krishnakant Yadav Vs the State of Bihar

Abhishek Kumar @ Chhotu Vs The State of Bihar

Shailesh Kumar Vs the State of Bihar

Sonu Kumar @ Amar Kumar Vs The State of Bihar