Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.22511 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Ajay Dom S/O Baleshwar Dom Resident Of Mohalla- Aliganj Baunsi Road, P.S- Babarganj, District- Bhagalpur, 2. Rohit Bansphore S/O Pando Bansphore Resident Of Village- Baunsi Road, Aliganj, P.S- Babarganj, District- Bhagalpur. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 2 14-06-2012 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to inadvertence name of Rohit Bansphore has been typed as petitioner no.2 in the present case. Rohit Bansphore has not even executed Vakalatnama. The Stamp Reporter also failed to point out the defect. Learned counsel further submits that a separate application on behalf of Rohit Bansphore has already been filed with duly executed Vakalatnama which is running on the daily cause list before another Bench. In that view of the matter, He seeks permission to delete the name of petitioner no.2. Leave is granted. Learned counsel is permitted to delete the name of petitioner no.2 from the list of the petitioner. Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner Ajay Dome apprehends his arrest in Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22511 of 2012 (2) dt.14-06-2012 2 connection with a case instituted for the offence punishable under [STATUTE] . It is stated that though the alleged occurrence took place on 26.9.2011, the first information report was lodged after ten days on 6.10.2011. It is further contended that there is no material to support the allegation made by the informant. The first information report was instituted on the basis of hypothetical presumption and wild suspicion. Be that as it may, considering the nature of allegation, facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioner, namely, Ajay Dome in the event of arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur in connection with Mozahidpur (Babarganj) P.S. Case No.137 of 2011 subject to the conditions as laid down under section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and also subject to the 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 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22511 of 2012 (2) dt.14-06-2012 3 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 shall take prior permission of the court and in case of compelling and unavoidable circumstances for remaining absent, he shall immediately inform the court and request that he may be permitted to be present through 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. Md.S./- (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 411

Statute Text:
Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. Dishonestly receiving stolen property knowing it to be stolen. Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.