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.”