Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.43540 of 2011 Dharamraj Yadav, son of Ramnath Yadav, resident of village- Chhatanwar, P.S. Krishna Brahm, District- Buxar. …..Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar : …. … Opposite Party. ---------------------------------- 02- 13.1.2012 Heard the parties. The petitioner is in custody in connection with Koransarai P.S. Case No.36 of 2010 for an offence punishable under [STATUTE] . The F.I.R. is against unknown. The name of the petitioner has transpired during the course of investigation. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that neither there was any recovery from the possession of the petitioner nor the petitioner has been subjected to any T.I. parade and he has remained in custody since 9.9.2011 by reason of the statement of a co-accused. Learned counsel further with reference to a common order dated 19.12.2011 passed in Cr. Misc. No.41914 of 2011 and Cr. Misc. No.43367 of 2011 submits that two of the co-accused in the present case, namely, Kariya Yadav and Sohan Shukla have since been granted bail by a Bench of this Court. He submits that the case of the petitioner is on same and similar footing. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having considered the materials on record let the petitioner, namely, Dharamraj Yadav 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buxar in connection with Koransarai P.S. Case No.36 of 2010 subject to the following conditions: (a) The father of the petitioner shall stand as one of the bailors and who shall be under a duty to inform the court below in case the petitioner after his release in the present case, is found involved in any further case of similar nature and whereupon the court below shall be at liberty to cancel his bail bonds and to take him into custody. (b) The petitioner shall ensure his representation before the court below on each and every date fixed in the case and failure on the part of the petitioner to ensure his representation on two consecutive dates fixed in the case, without reasonable explanation to the satisfaction of the court below, would entitle the court concerned to cancel his bail bonds and to take him into custody. (Jyoti Saran, J.) S.K.Pathak/

Applicable IPC Section: 392

Statute Text:
Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code. Robbery. Whoever commits robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the robbery be committed on the highway between sunset and sunrise, the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years.