Monu Kumar vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Monu Kumar, sought bail in connection with Dumariyaghat P.S. Case No. 12 of 2022, registered for offences under Sections 414, 420, 467, 468, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that six accused persons stole a truck laden with sugar bags and attempted to sell them. During a police raid, several bags of sugar were recovered from various individuals, including the petitioner. A total of 40 bags of sugar were found in the petitioner's godown, allegedly purchased at half price. The petitioner was not named in the First Information Report (FIR). He claimed to be running a shop and godown, and that the recovered sugar was purchased by his father. He also stated he possessed GST and other invoice bills indicating the sugar was not stolen property. A co-accused with similar allegations had been granted bail.

Held

The Court granted bail to the petitioner. The reasoning was based on several factors: the petitioner was not named in the FIR, and there was no direct allegation of theft of sugar bags against him. The alleged sugar bags were recovered from his godown, but the petitioner claimed to possess GST and other invoice bills to prove legitimate purchase. Crucially, the Court noted that co-accused persons with similar allegations had already been granted bail. Furthermore, the petitioner had been in custody since January 20, 2022, the investigation had concluded, and a charge sheet had been submitted. The Court directed the petitioner's release on bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties of like amount, subject to conditions including cooperation in the trial, presence on each date, not tampering with evidence, and not intimidating witnesses. Default in appearing for two consecutive dates without cogent reason would lead to cancellation of bail. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail considering he was not named in the FIR and the recovered sugar bags were allegedly purchased with valid documentation, despite being found in his godown? 2. Whether the petitioner's custody, the conclusion of investigation, and submission of charge sheet warrant the grant of bail, especially in light of a co-accused with similar allegations being granted bail? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that he was not named in the FIR and the recovered 40 bags of sugar were purchased with valid GST and invoice bills, indicating they were not stolen property. He further contended that the godown belonged to his father and the sugar was purchased by his father. He also highlighted that a co-accused, Manoj Kumar Sah, with similar allegations, had been granted bail by this Court. The petitioner has been in custody since January 20, 2022, and has fair antecedents. Revenue's Arguments: The State opposed the bail application.