Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.38872 of 2011 ====================================================== Chitranjan Thakur @ Chitu, son of Chaturdeo Thakur, resident of village- Fulwariya, P.S.- Fenhara, District- East Champaran at Motihari. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 3 15-03-2012 Heard the parties. The petitioner is in custody in connection with Sessions Trial No.445 of 2009 arising from Hajipur Sadar P.S. Case No.404 of 2006 for the offences punishable under [STATUTE] . Charges, however, have been framed by the trial court under [STATUTE] . The allegation set out in the FIR is against six unnamed accused who have committed dacoity in the cash-van of the Bank in which an amount of Rs.37.80 lacs was being transported from Muzaffarpur to Patna. The occurrence took place before the railway crossing, when the unnamed accused attacked the van, gunned down three of the occupants including the guard and the cashier. The driver of the van who had left the van just prior to the occurrence on the pretext of having a glass of water was arrested in the case and the name of this petitioner has transpired on the basis of the statement made by the said driver. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that except the confessional statement of the driver, namely, Lokesh Kumar there is no other material to connect this petitioner with the alleged occurrence, Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38872 of 2011 (3) dt.15-03-2012 2 inasmuch as neither any recovery has been made from his possession nor the petitioner has been put on test identification parade. It is submitted that considering the circumstances a Bench of this Court has been pleased to grant bail to another accused, namely, Abhay Kumar Sharma @ Abhay Sharma vide order passed on 01.09.2008 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.26068 of 2008. It is submitted that several other accused have also been granted bail including Lokesh Kumar which finds mentioned in the order passed in the case of Abhay Kumar Sharma @ Abhay Sharma. It is thus submitted that the case of this petitioner stands on same and similar footing. Regard being had to the submission of learned counsel and having perused the materials on record, let the petitioner, namely, Chitranjan Thakur @ Chitu 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 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Vaishali at Hajipur in connection with Sessions Trial No.445 of 2009 arising out of Hajipur Sadar P.S. Case No.404 of 2006; 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 on two consecutive dates fixed in the trial, without reasonable explanation to the satisfaction of the trial court, would entitle the court concerned to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner and to take him into custody. SKPathak/- (Jyoti Saran, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 216

Statute Text:
Section 216 of the Indian Penal Code. Harbouring an offender who has escaped from custody, or whose apprehension has been ordered, If the offence be capital. Whenever any person convicted of or charged with an offence, being in lawful custody for that offence, escapes from such custody, or whenever a public servant, in the exercise of the lawful powers of such public servant, orders a certain person to be apprehended for an offence, whoever, knowing of such escape or order for apprehension, harbours or conceals that person with the intention of preventing him from being apprehended, shall be punished in the manner following, that is to say: if a capital offence — if the offence for which the person was in custody or is ordered to be apprehended is punishable with death, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment — if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for ten years, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, with or without fine; and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year and not to ten years, he shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for such offence or with fine, or with both. "Offence" in this section includes also any act or omission of which a person is alleged to have been guilty out of India, which, if he had been guilty of it in India, would have been punishable as an offence, and for which he is, under any law relating to extradition, or otherwise liable to be apprehended or detained in custody in India, and every such act or omission shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be punishable as if the accused person had been guilty of it in India.