Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.12259 of 2012 ====================================================== Rajeev Kumar @ Rajiv Kumar, son of Masudan Singh, resident of Village- Jaitpur, P.S.-Barhiya, District-Lakhisarai. .... .... Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 2 21-03-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with a case for the offence punishable under [STATUTE] . The petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. In course of investigation, it is alleged that on suspicion, he was apprehended and from his possession Rs. 2,700/- in cash was recovered. Neither the petitioner nor the amount so recovered from him has been put on T.I. Parade, though, he is in custody since 14.12.2011. The further contention is that the alleged amount said to have been recovered from his possession belongs to him and is not a looted property. It is also submitted that other co-accused Ranjeet Kumar and Luxman Kumar @ Lakhan have already been granted bail by order dated 12.2.2012 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 10864 of 2012 by another bench of this Court. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12259 of 2012 (2) dt.21-03-2012 2 / 2 2 petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his executing a bond with two solvent sureties, each in a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand only) to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai in connection with Brahiya P.S. Case No. 131 of 2011 on the following conditions: (i) That both the bailors will be close relative of the petitioner who will give separate affidavit giving genealogy as to how they are related with the petitioner. (ii) That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the court or to any other authority. (iii) That he shall remain present before the court on the dates fixed for hearing of the case. If he wants to remain absent, then he will take prior permission of the court and in case of compelling and unavoidable circumstances for remaining absent, he will immediately inform the court and request that he may be permitted to be present through the counsel. (iv) That liberty is given to the State to make an appropriate application for modifying/recalling the order granting bail, if for any reason, the petitioner violates any of the conditions imposed by this Court. Sanjeet/- (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 412

Statute Text:
Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code. Dishonestly receiving stolen property, knowing that it was obtained by Dacoity. Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, the possession whereof he knows or has reason to believe to have been transferred by the commission of dacoity, or dishonestly receives from a person, whom he knows or has reason to believe to belong or to have belonged to a gang of dacoits, property which he knows or has reason to believe to have been stolen, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.