Allowed

Rahul Kumar v. the State of Bihar

Patna HC4 Oct 2024CR. MISC./27974/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants bail to a petitioner in judicial custody alleged under Section 292 IPC for robbery/looting. The court noted the significant delay in issuing summons to prosecution witnesses after framing charges. Bail was extended subject to specific conditions including furnishing a bond, appearance in court and police station, and non-surrender of witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of like amount, subject to specific undertakings regarding attendance and conduct.

Rahul Kumar Vs the State of Bihar — Bail and Remand | Patna HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27974 of 2024

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-299 Year-2022 Thana- MOTIPUR District- Muzaffarpur

¶3

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

¶4

RAHUL KUMAR S/O PRAMOD SAH R/O VILLAGE- SHIVNAGAR, P.SRUNNI SAIDPUR, DISTT.- SITAMARHI.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

THE STATE OF BIHAR BIHAR

¶8

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Alok Kumar Alok, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Zainul Abedin, APP ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER

¶11

4 04-10-2024 Heard the parties.

¶12

The petitioner is in judicial custody in connection with Motipur P.S. Case No. 299 of 2022 instituted under section 292 of the Indian Penal Code lodged on 17.08.2022 by the informant, Pramod Prasad.

¶13

As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that his pickup van was moving carrying gram, pea and pulse for his shop. When his vehicle reached near Kodar Katta, N.H.18, unknown miscreants intercepted and looted goods after making the driver unconscious. The driver cme at the house of the information and narrated the story. Thereafter upon search, his vehicle was found but the goods were stolen.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the said alleged act, he has already remained in custody since

¶15

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27974 of 2024(4) dt.04-10-2024 2/3

¶16

19.08.2022 (para-1 of the petition) though he concedes that the petitioner has criminal antecedent.

¶17

In this case, a report was called for on the stage of the trial and as per letter no. 171 dated 12.09.2024 sent by learned A.C.J.M. 2^nd , Muzaffarpur (West), the charges have been framed against the accused persons and summon issued but no prosecution witness has been examined so far.

¶18

It is unfortunate that in a case where charges were framed on 28.07.2023, it took one year later to issue the summon to the prosecution witnesses.

¶19

Learned APP though opposes the prayer for bail submitted that he has criminal antecedent.

¶20

Considering his period of custody and further trial has still not been initiated, on the undertaking given by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he will be diligently appearing in trial, this Court is inclined to extend him the privilege of bail with conditions.

¶21

Let the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned A.C.J.M.-IInd (West) Muzaffarpur, in connection with Motipur P.S. Case No. 299 of 2022 subject to the following conditions:

¶22

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27974 of 2024(4) dt.04-10-2024 3/3

¶23

(i) one of the bailor should be the family member/relative of the petitioner who shall provide official document to show his bona fide;

¶24

(ii) the petitioner shall appear on each and every date before the Trial Court and failure to do so even a single date without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his bail bond by the Trial Court itself;

¶25

(iii) the petitioner shall appear before the concerned police station every till conclusion of the trial to mark his attendance;

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

(Rajiv Roy, J)

¶29

Ravi/-

¶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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivnandan Mandal Vs The State of Bihar

Prem Prakash @ Prem Prakash Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Shambhu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Prakash Kumar Nayak Vs The State of Bihar

Sanjeev Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Ajit Kumar Sharma @ Ajit Kumar Gond @ Ajit Kumar Vs The State of Bihar