Gautam Kumar vs. The State Of Bihar

Held

The Court granted bail to the petitioner, Gautam Kumar. The decision was based on the facts and circumstances of the case, including the petitioner's submission that his name surfaced due to the confessional statement of a co-accused and his assertion of no knowledge regarding the stolen nature of the iron rods. The Court also considered the petitioner's lack of criminal antecedents and the period he had already spent in custody since December 26, 2019. The petitioner was released on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned court below. Specific conditions were imposed, including cooperation in the trial, physical presence as directed by the court, and a warning against tampering with evidence or witnesses, failing which the bail bond could be cancelled. The issue regarding the purchase of iron rods without GST was not expressly decided in the context of the bail application.

Facts

The petitioner, Gautam Kumar, sought bail in a case registered for offences under Sections 414/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The informant reported that iron rods were looted from a truck. Acting on GPS location, the police found the iron rods at the petitioner's house. The petitioner could not produce documents for the iron rods and stated they were purchased without GST. The iron rods were seized, and the petitioner was arrested. The petitioner claims innocence, stating his involvement is based on the confessional statement of a co-accused, Rajeev Kumar. He asserts he had no knowledge the rods were stolen, has no criminal antecedents, and has been in custody since December 26, 2019.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail in connection with Kharagpur P.S. Case No. 446 of 2019, registered for offences under Sections 414/34 of the Indian Penal Code, considering his alleged involvement in the possession of stolen iron rods purchased without GST. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contends he is innocent and falsely implicated based on suspicion and the confessional statement of a co-accused. He claims no knowledge of the stolen nature of the iron rods and highlights his lack of criminal antecedents and period of custody. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the State/Opposite Party regarding the bail application. The facts presented by the prosecution indicate the recovery of stolen goods from the petitioner's premises and the alleged purchase of these goods without GST.