Allowed

Ajay Yadav @ Ajay Kumar Yadav @ Ajay Kumar v. the State of Bihar

Patna HC3 Oct 2024CR. MISC./69981/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under Section 379 IPC for alleged possession of a stolen motorcycle; petitioner claimed he bought it unknowingly from co-accused. Court granted bail considering the offence is triable by Magistrate and chargesheet was filed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on Rs.10,000 bond with two like sureties before SDJM, Raxaul at Motihari, with conditions including presence at trial.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69981 of 2024

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-172 Year-2024 Thana- RAXAUL District- East Champaran

¶3

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

¶4

Ajay Yadav @ Ajay Kumar Yadav @ Ajay Kumar, Son Of Bhikhar Yadav, R/O Vill.- Siswa, P.S.- Raxaul, Dist.- East Champaran.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State Of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance :

¶10

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Kanhiya Kishor, Advocate

¶11

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

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶13

2 03-10-2024

¶14

Heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶15

The application for grant of bail to the petitioner who is in custody in connection with Raxaul P.S. Case No. 172 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 379 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

Allegedly the informant went in Cosino Mall after parking his motorcycle bearing Registration No. BR05N8076 and when he returned back, he found his motorcycle missing. Despite his best effort he could not trace out his motorcycle; and then he came to know that his motorcycle has been stolen by some unknown thieves.

¶17

Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the

¶18

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69981 of 2024(2) dt.03-10-2024 2/3

¶19

petitioner contended that the FIR has been instituted against unknown thieves. During the course of investigation the petitioner was apprehended with the subject motorcycle, however, it has later on surfaced that the motorcycle was stolen by the co-accused Hammu Yadav and the petitioner has purchased the stolen motorcycle after making payment of Rs. 13,000/- to co-accused Hammu Yadav. Learned Advocate for the petitioner further contended that in fact he was not knowing this fact that the motorcycle in question is a stolen property and thus, he purchased the same without knowing the consequences. For the fault as stated above, the petitioner has already been punished and now he has been incarcerated since 07.07.2024.

¶20

On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State vehemently opposes the bail application and submits that the petitioner was apprehended with the stolen motorcycle.

¶21

Regard being had to the submissions made on behalf of the parties and considering the fact that the crime in question is triable by the Magistrate and now the petitioner has been incarcerated since 07.07.2024, the investigation of the crime is complete and the chargesheet has been submitted, let the petitioner, named above, be released on bail on furnishing

¶22

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69981 of 2024(2) dt.03-10-2024 3/3

¶23

bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Raxaul at Motihari, Dist. East Champaran in connection with Raxaul P.S. Case No. 172 of 2024, subject to the condition that one of the bailors will be the close relatives of the petitioner with further conditions which are as follows:-

¶24

(i) The petitioner will cooperate in conclusion of the

¶25

trial.

¶26

(ii) He will remain present on each and every date of trial till disposal of the case.

¶27

(iii) He will not try to tamper with the evidence or intimidate the witnesses to delay the disposal of trial.

¶28

(iv) In the event of default of two consecutive dates without any cogent reason, his bail bonds will liable to be cancelled.

¶29

(Harish Kumar, J)

¶30

supratim/-

¶31

U T

Ajay Yadav @ Ajay Kumar Yadav @ Ajay Kumar v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Yadav @ Ajay Kumar Yadav @ Ajay 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

Sushil Kumar Srivastava Vs The State of Bihar

Sri Kishun Bind and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Ashok Kumar, Vs The State of Bihar Mr. Mihir Kumar Singh

Md. Mohsenul Islam @ Bhim @ Mohsenul Islam @ Mohsulu Imam @ Bhim Vs The State of Bihar

Rupesh Yadav @ Rupesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Ravi Shankar Kumar Vs The State of Bihar