IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.32485 of 2011
Sonu Kumar Singh
Versus
The State Of Bihar
2. 15.10.2011. Heard learned counsels for the
petitioner and the State.
The petitioner is apprehending his
arrest in a case registered under Sections
395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code. Later
on Section 396 of the I.P.C. was also added.
It is alleged that during dacoity
one Rajendra Paswan was apprehended by the
villagers who disclosed the name of eight
persons in which the petitioner’s name did
not figure. Subsequently, one of the co-
accused Amarnath Kumar @ Guddu Kumar Paswan
named the petitioner to the effect that
pistol was brought by Amarnath Kumar from
the petitioner’s house and the petitioner
participated in other dacoity alongwith
Amarnath Kumar.
The statement has been made in the
supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of
the petitioner to the effect that the
petitioner has never been made accused under
Section 395 of the I.P.C. except three
excise cases in which the petitioner is on
2
bail. It is submitted by the learned counsel
for the petitioner that no recovery has been
made from possession of petitioner.
Considering the fact that only
confession of subsequently apprehended
accused is against the petitioner, let the
petitioner, above named, be released on bail
in the event of arrest or surrender before
the learned court below within a period of
twelve weeks from today in connection with
Daudnagar P.S. Case No. 53 of 2011 on
furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Ten
Thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the
learned C.J.M. Aurangabad, subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 438(2)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
U. K. ( Dinesh Kumar Singh, J)