Gautam Kumar vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 3554 Patna

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 37707 of 2020
     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.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

 For the Petitioner/s    :       Mr. Arun, Advocate
 For the State           :       Mr. Yogendra Kumar Singh, APP

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH 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

Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the State.

3. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with

Athmalgola PS Case No. 182 of 2018 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.37707 of 2020 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. 271 of 2018, 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.37707 of 2020 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

petitioner.

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/- (twenty five thousand) with

two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the

learned SDJM, Barh, Patna in Athmalgola PS Case No. 182 of

2018, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and further, (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 good

behaviour 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, 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.37707 of 2020 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

petitioner.

9. The petition stands disposed off in the aforementioned

terms.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

P. Kumar

AFR/NAFR U T