IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.36993 of 2008 CHANDAN KUMAR, son of Sri Bhikhari Singh, resident of mohalla Govindpuri Bibiganj, P.S. Muzaffarpur (Sadar), District - Muzaffarpur Versus STATE OF BIHAR With Cr.Misc. No.37389 of 2008 AMIT KUMAR, son of Ramjee Baitha, r/o village – Dattapur, P.S. Saraiya, District - Muzaffarpur Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- For the Petitioners: M/s Yogesh Chandra Verma, Shakeel Ahmad Khan, Sr. Advocates For the State : M/s. M. Rahman & Manish Kumar, APPs. 4/ 16.02.2009 Heard. The two petitions; one on behalf of Chandan Kumar and other on behalf of the Amit Kumar have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. The case relates to robbing an employee of the firm who was going to deposit a sum of money in the bank. Robbery was committed at gun point. As happens in such cases, there is none named in the FIR and consequently, on suspicion, one Braj Kishore Mahto was arrested and he confessed before the police the commission of the offence and also named some of his accomplishes who were amongst others, the two petitioners before the court. While confessing, said Braj Kishore Mahto laid information before the police that some part of the booty was lying with the petitioner Chandan Kumar and accordingly, the house of accused Chandan was searched and Rupees sixty six thousand was recovered from his house. As regards petitioner Amit Kumar, there is no recovery. In - 2 - case of both the petitioners, in spite of being in custody since quite some months, none of them were attempted to be put on Test Identification Parade though some were put, as appears from the petition preferred by accused Chandan Kumar. The two petitions were heard on 12.2.2009 and on that particular day, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner Chandan Kumar produced before me a copy of S.B. account held by petitioner Chandan Kumar in S.B.I., Muzaffarpur to show that the petitioner had withdrawn the money and was properly having the same in his custody. The withdrawal was claimed within a period starting from 21st April to 5th May, 2008 and the source of deposit was indicated as income from transport business. As may appear from the order recorded on that very day that the petitioners’ identity in the passbook was “student” and that there was no withdrawal of any amount by the petitioner within the period indicated above. Today, the petitioners has produced yet another document through supplementary affidavit indicating that he was paid cash of rupees sixty thousand by cheque no. 61351 to be cashed on Canara Bank, Muzaffarpur. He encashed the same amount on 29th April, 2008 and as such it could not be said that the cash which was recovered from his house, was part of the booty. In support of the contention, attention of the court was drawn to paragraph 58 of the case diary, i.e., the statement of the father of the petitioner Chandan who made a statement before the police at the time of recovery that the cash has been paid to him by one of the contractors engaged in building construction, namely, - 3 - Umesh Kumar. The court could have accepted the explanation offered by petitioner Chandan Kumar in spite of the fact that there was a shortage of about six thousand rupees but the defence appears varying and changing every day. The cheque issued to the man for rupees sixty thousand is in the name of C. Kumar, it might be Chandan Kumar, may not be Chandan Kumar. Again, the purpose could be many and there was no such submission as has been made that there was some business relationship of petitioner Chandan Kumar to said Umesh Kumar, specially when, said Umesh Kumar was never produced before the police to explain that he had issued the cheque in favour of Chandan Kumar. Identity of the petitioner Chandan Kumar varies. His statements vary and considering that, I am not inclined to direct his release at this stage. The petition (Cr. Misc. No. 36993 of 2008) is dismissed. However, the petitioner Chandan Kumar may renew his prayer after charges are framed after completion of investigation. As regards petitioner Amit Kumar, he was not put on Test Identification Parade nor there was any recovery from him. Let petitioner Amit Kumar be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10000/(ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of C.J.M. Muzaffarpur in Kazimohammadpur P.S. Case No. 72 of 2008. Anil/ (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)