The petitioner was released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds after being apprehended under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code: High court of Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 377020 Arising Out of PS. Case No. 182 Year 2018 Thana ATHMALGOLA District Patna Gautam Kumar aged about 22 years Male Son of Sukesh Singh Resident of Village Achuara PS Barh District Patna The State of Bihar ... Petitioner s For the Petitioner s For the State Mr. Arun Advocate Mr. Yogendra Kumar Singh APP CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ... Opposite Party s ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 20 07 2021 The matter has been heard via video conferencing. 2. Heard Mr. Arun learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Yogendra Kumar Singh learned Additional Public Prosecutorfor the State 3. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Athmalgola PS Case No. 1818 dated 10.08.2018 instituted under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The allegation against the petitioner though not named in the FIR is that he was party to the looting of the motorcycle and mobile of the informant 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has nothing to do with the entire episode and is being harassed by the police in the case. It was submitted that one co accused was Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.377020 dt.20 07 2021 apprehended from whom the looted mobile was recovered and on his confession other co accused were apprehended but he has not taken the name of the petitioner. It was submitted that the police thereafter arrested one Vikash Kumar as the looted motorcycle was parked near his house and then the police have shown that he has confessed and has taken the name of Gautam Kumar who had assisted in purchase of the stolen motorcycle. Learned counsel submitted that even as per the confessional statement the name is Gautam Kumar but he is said to be son of Saroj Kumar whereas though the petitioner is also named Gautam Kumar but he is son of Sukesh Singh. Learned counsel submitted that in the village of the petitioner there are four persons named Gautam Kumar. Thus it was submitted that the petitioner is not Gautam Kumar who has been named by co accused Vikash Kumar and most importantly he has no connection with the crime. Learned counsel submitted that though the petitioner has one other case against him being Barh PS Case No. 2718 but the same is under Sections 307 34 of the Indian Penal Code in which he is on bail and the same has also been lodged due to fight in the village 6. Learned APP submitted that co accused from whom the looted motorcycle was recovered has taken the name of the petitioner. However in view of the categorical statement made on Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.377020 dt.20 07 2021 oath in paragraphs no. 8 and 9 of the present petition learned APP could not explain the contradiction in the name of the father of the 7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties in the event of arrest or surrender before the Court below within six weeks from today the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25 000 with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned SDJM Barh Patna in Athmalgola PS Case No. 1818 subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and further that one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioner that the petitioner and the bailors shall execute bond with regard to good behaviour of the petitioner andthat the petitioner shall also give an undertaking to the Court that he shall not indulge in any illegal criminal activity act in violation of any law statutory provisions tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses Any violation of the terms and conditions of the bonds or the undertaking shall lead to cancellation of his bail bonds. The petitioner shall cooperate in the case and be present before the Court on each and every date. Failure to cooperate or being absent Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.377020 dt.20 07 2021 on two consecutive dates without sufficient cause shall also lead to cancellation of his bail bonds 8. It shall also be open for the prosecution to bring any violation of the foregoing conditions of bail by the petitioner to the notice of the Court concerned which shall take immediate action on the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the 9. The petition stands disposed off in the aforementioned (Ahsanuddin Amanullah J

Summary: The petitioner was taken into custody after being accused under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code,” Punishment for robbery.” This arrest is in connection with Athmalgola PS Case No. 182 of 2018 dated 10.08.2018. This judgment was given in the high court of Judicature at Patna by honorable Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah on the 20th of July  2021 in the case of Gautam Kumar versus the state of Bihar criminal miscellaneous No. 37707 of 2020, Mr. Arun Represented as the advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Yogendra Kumar represented as the additional Public Prosecutor, for the state of Bihar the proceedings of the court were held via video conference. The following are the facts of the case, the petitioner was accused of being a party to the looting of a motorcycle and mobile belonging to the informant even though his name was not mentioned in the FIR. The counsel for the petitioner held that the petitioner had nothing to do with the entire episode and is currently being harassed by the police. The co-accused was arrested as the motorcycle and mobile were recovered from him and he made a confession that did not include the petitioner’s name. The counsel held there has been a mistake of identifying the name mentioned in the confession as Gautam Kumar son of Saroj Kumar whereas the name of the petitioner was Gautam Kumar, but he is the son of Sukesh Singh. The counsel submitted that in the village many people residing there have similar names, therefore, the petitioner has been taken into custody due to mistaken identity and he has no connection with the crime. The petitioner is involved in another case Barh PS Case No. 271 of 2018, under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code which he is on bail, and the case was lodged due to some fight in the village. The additional public Prosecutor submitted when the recovery of the motorcycle and the mobile phone of the informant was recovered from the co-accused, in his confessional statement he named the petitioner. However, the name of the father was not controverted. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case the court held that the petitioner will be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty-five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned SDJM, in PS Case No. 182 of 2018, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2)Cr. P.C., 1973, “(i) that one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioner, (ii) that the petitioner and the bailors shall execute bond with regard to the good behavior of the petitioner, and (iii) that the petitioner shall also give an undertaking to the Court that he shall not indulge in any illegal/criminal activity.”  The court concluded that “Any violation of the terms and conditions of the bonds or the undertaking shall lead to cancellation of his bail bonds. The petitioner shall cooperate in the case and be present before the Court on each and every date. Failure to cooperate or being absent on two consecutive dates, without sufficient cause, shall also lead to the cancellation of his bail bonds. It shall also be open for the prosecution to bring any violation of the foregoing conditions of bail by the petitioner, to the notice of the Court concerned, which shall take immediate action on the same after giving the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.”