Sanjog Yadav @ Sanjog Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anirudh Kumar Verma, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Zainul Abedin, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶10

2 23-10-2024

¶11

Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.

¶12

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Aurangabad Town P.S. Case No. 441 of 2020, registered for the offences punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

The allegation against the petitioner is of causing theft of Maruti Wagon-R car along with four batteries of E- Rickshaw. The entire incidence is said to have been captured in CCTV camera.

¶14

Learned Advocate for the petitioner drawing the attention of this Court to the FIR contended that the FIR clearly shows that there was a dispute with regard to demand of

¶15

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70034 of 2024(2) dt.23-10-2024 2/3

¶16

advance money and the informant himself admitted that he has taken advance of Rs. 20,000/- but has returned only Rs. 13,500/due to which there was a dispute between the parties. It is further contended that the entire case is based on suspicion, as during the course of investigation, it has come that on the alleged date of occurrence, he was present there and had given some signal by pointing towards the car. The materials, at best suggest that the petitioner might be the person, who was instrumental in getting the car, in question, stolen. During the course of investigation, nothing has been recovered from the whereabouts of the petitioner and both the parties were known to each other. It is next contended that though the petitioner bears four criminal antecedent, however, the petitioner is on bail in all the cases. So far the present case is concerned, no process has ever been served upon the petitioner and he was not acquainted with the same.

¶17

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the pre-arrest bail application and submits that the case is of 2020 and the petitioner has been evading his arrest for the last several years.

¶18

Regard being had to the submissions made on behalf of the parties and considering the nature of allegation

¶19

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70034 of 2024(2) dt.23-10-2024 3/3

¶20

based upon suspicion and the previous dispute between the parties, let the petitioner above named be released on bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/(ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad in connection with Aurangabad Town P.S. Case No. 441 of 2020, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. with the further condition that one of the bailors shall be the own/close family members of the petitioner.

¶21

(Harish Kumar, J)

¶22

shivank/-

¶23

U T

Sanjog Yadav @ Sanjog Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjog Yadav @ Sanjog Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Meera Kumari Vs The State of Bihar

Geeta Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Keshri Kant Sharma Vs Jai Prakash University

Anil Sah Vs The State of Bihar

Rohit Kumar @ Rohit Prasad Vs The State of Bihar

Yogendra Sah @ Jogendra Sah Vs The State of Bihar