Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.41338 of 2011 ====================================================== Daya Rabidas, S/o Bhuneshwar Rabidas, Resident of Village- Mahengro, P.S.- Khaira, District- Jamui. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bikram Deo Singh, Advocate with Mr. S.P. Parasar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :Mr. H.M. Rahman, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN) 3 01-02-2012 Heard the parties. The petitioner is in custody in connection with Session Trial No.380 of 2011 arising from Khaira P.S. Case No.106 of 2005 for the offences punishable under [STATUTE] . The FIR was lodged against unknown. It is alleged that two persons in police uniform and six others committed dacoity in the house of the informant and also caused gun-shot injury on the person of the informant and while doing so they took away the valuables including jewellery from the house of the informant. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the name of the petitioner has transpired on the basis of re-statement made by the informant found in paragraph 97 of the case diary and on the basis of information given by spy of police station. It is stated that whereas the informant while instituting the FIR claimed that he can identify the accused persons upon production but in course of re-statement made almost fourteen months from the occurrence the informant specifically Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41338 of 2011 (3) dt.01-02-2012 2 named this petitioner saying that he was afraid of giving out the name at the early stage. In the same manner the witnesses in paragraphs 98 and 99 have also simply named this petitioner along with some other accused persons. Learned counsel submits that in absence of any recovery from the possession of the petitioner and the petitioner not having been put on T.I. parade he has been remanded in the present case on 13.10.2010 from another case in which he was serving sentence and he has remained in custody for five years. Taking into consideration the submission of learned counsel, let the petitioner, namely Daya Rabidas 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 the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum- FTC-3, Jamui in connection with S.Tr. No.380 of 2011 arising out of Khaira P.S. Case No.106 of 2005, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall ensure his representation before the trial court on each and every date fixed in the trial and failure on the part of the petitioner to ensure his representation before the trial court on two consecutive dates fixed in the trial without reasonable explanation to the satisfaction of the trial court, would entitle the trial court to cancel his bail bonds and to take him into custody. SKPathak/- (Jyoti Saran, J.)

Applicable IPC Section: 395

Statute Text:
Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. Dacoity. Whoever commits dacoity 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.