Patna High Court - Orders
Ram Kripal Yadav vs The State Of Bihar on 5 July, 2018
Author: Nilu Agrawal
Bench: Nilu Agrawal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.38090 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-12 Year-2018 Thana- PANDAUL District- Madhubani
======================================================
Ram Kripal Yadav, Son of Rameshwar Yadav, Resident of Village- Sant
Nagar, P.S. Bhairab Asthan, District- Madhubani.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gagan Deo Yadav, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL
ORAL ORDER
2 05-07-2018Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.
Petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 21.02.2018 in connection with Pandaul P.S. Case No. 12 of 2018 registered for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code.
The prosecution case, as lodged by the informant, is that while he had gone to appear in his M.Com examination and parked his motorcycle outside the college premises, after returning he found his motorcycle missing. The motorcycle belongs to his brother-in-law.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is innocent, not named in the First Information Report and only on the basis of recovery of five motorcycles in Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38090 of 2018(2) dt.05-07-2018 2/2 the garage which was run by the petitioner and the stolen motorcycle had also been brought for repairing that the petitioner has been made accused in another case bearing Rajnagar P.S. Case No. 320 of 2017. He submits that he is on bail in Raj Nagar P.S. Case No. 320 of 2017 and also Pandaul P.S. Case No. 210 of 2017. It is further submitted that charge- sheet has already been submitted and there is no allegation of tampering with the prosecution witnesses by the petitioner.
However, learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances and the materials on record, let the petitioner, named above, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani in connection with Pandaul P.S. Case No. 12 of 2018, subject to the condition that one of the bailors would be close relative of the petitioner having sufficient immovable properties, who will file an affidavit stating his relationship with the petitioner.
(Nilu Agrawal, J.)
Arjun/Ragini
U T