Allowed

Pintu Kumar @ Rakesh Yadav @ Pintu Yadav @ Randhir Yadav v. the State of Bihar

Patna HC1 Feb 2024CR. MISC./3783/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted regular bail to the petitioner accused of robbery under Section 395 IPC. The court noted the petitioner was not named in the FIR, had been in custody since September 2023, and relied solely on a co-accused's confessional statement. Bail was granted with a bond of Rs. 10,000 and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail granted on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of like amount.

Pintu Kumar @ Rakesh Yadav @ Pintu Yadav @ Randhir Yadav Vs… — Bail and Remand | Patna HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3783 of 2024

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-519 Year-2016 Thana- NAWADA District- Nawada

¶3

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

¶4

Pintu Kumar @ Rakesh Yadav @ Pintu Yadav @ Randhir Yadav S/O Late Rajendra Yadav R/O Moh.- Lalji Tola, Behind C.D.A Building, P.S- Gandhi Maidan, Distt.- Patna.

... ... Petitioner/S

Versus

The State Of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Nityanand Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Md. Ataur Rahman ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER

¶11

2 01-02-2024

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶13

APP for the State.

¶14

The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

As per prosecution case, it is alleged that some unknown miscreants looted the truck of the informant which was loaded with biscuits.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. The petitioner is not named in the FIR. His name was sprang up in the present case on the basis of confessional statement of coaccused Kundan Mahto before the police which has got no

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3783 of 2024(2) dt.01-02-2024 2/2

¶18

evidentiary value in the eye of law. No any incriminating article has been recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 25.9.2023. Other co-accused Tinku Sharma has already been enlarged on bail granted by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dt. 6.1.2022 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 46580 of 2021.

¶19

Learned APP appearing for the state has opposed the prayer of regular bail.

¶20

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as custody period, this court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named petitioner is directed to be released on bail in connection with Nawada Nagar P.S. Case No. 519 of 2016 on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned CJM, Nawada.

¶21

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J)

¶22

Amandeep/-

¶23

U T

Pintu Kumar @ Rakesh Yadav @ Pintu Yadav @ Randhir Yadav v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pintu Kumar @ Rakesh Yadav @ Pintu Yadav @ Randhir Yadav 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

Bikesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Pawan Kumar Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Janardan Kumar @ Janardan Yadav Vs the State of Bihar

Pintu Kumar @Pintu Sah Vs The State of Bihar

Santosh Sahni Vs the State of Bihar

Arhuliya Devi @ Arhul Devi Vs the State of Bihar