Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No. 39983 of 2012 ====================================================== Jitendra Rai, son of Balsundar Rai, resident of Vill. Bherakhiya, P.S. Pipra, Distt. East Champaran. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : For the Opposite Party/s : ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL ORDER 3. 07-11-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner is in custody in connection with Motihari (Muffassil) P.S. Case No. 233 of 2012 registered for offence punishable under [STATUTE] . As per the allegation the informant who was returning home at 9:00 p.m. on 01.08.2012 on his motorcycle, was intercepted by four persons riding on two motorcycles and at gun point the motorcycle was taken away. It is further the case of the prosecution that at some distance three persons were caught by the villagers, who are said to be party to the crime whereas one person had run away. The petitioner is alleged to be one of the three persons caught by the villagers. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the arrest Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39983 of 2012 (3) dt.07-11-2012 2 was not made on the spot but rather, even as per the prosecution story, it was the villagers who had caught the petitioner at some distance and thus without there being Test Identification Parade, the petitioner cannot be said to have committed the crime. It is further submitted that the petitioner on the fateful day was returning after participating in Mahaviri Jhanda when he was caught by the villagers only on the basis of suspicion and handed over to the police. It is submitted that the petitioner was not caught with any motorcycle and the motorcycle was not recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that though he has not made such statement in the application but his instructions are and that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and is in custody since 01.08.2012. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the petitioner was caught nearby soon after the incident without any cogent reason and thus does not deserve to be released on bail. Upon hearing learned counsels for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, let the abovenamed petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39983 of 2012 (3) dt.07-11-2012 3 East Champaran at Motihari in Motihari (Muffassil) P.S. Case No. 233 of 2012. One of the bailors shall be the father of the petitioner. Both the bailor and the petitioner shall execute a bond of good behaviour and the petitioner shall also give an undertaking that he shall not indulge in any criminal activity. Further, petitioner shall be present before the court on each and every date till the disposal of the case. Failure to be present before the court on two consecutive dates without sufficient cause and violation of the terms and conditions of the bonds and the undertaking shall lead to cancellation of the bail bonds of the petitioner in the present case. Anjani/- (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

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.