Vikash Kumar @ Badri v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3802 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-77 Year-2019 Thana- SALIMPUR District- Patna ====================================================== Vikash Kumar @ Badri, aged about 20 years (Male), Son of Umed Lal Singh @ Umed Lal Resident of Village - Nakhash Bind, P.S.- Malsalami, Distt - Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Tej Narayan Singh, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Md. Aslam Ansari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 29-05-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State through virtual court proceeding. In this case, the petitioner is seeking bail in connection with Salimpur P.S. Case No. 77 of 2019 registered for offences under sections 302, 394/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

As per allegation, the Informant got an information that his son who had gone in the marriage has been killed by gun shot. Thereafter, he reached at the place of occurrence where he came to know that when his son was going towards Mustafapur with one Sugga Kumar on motorcycle, they were followed and intercepted by four persons in two motorcycles. One of the accused persons took out the mobile of his son and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3802 of 2020(3) dt.29-05-2020 2/2 shot fire by pistol on the chest of his son and fled away towards west side. Sugga Kumar has stated that the criminals were aged about 20-30 years. He has also given the details of the accused persons.

It appears that during investigation, the petitioner was identified to have involved in the incident and has also made a confessional statement before the police of his involvement.

The petitioner is in custody since 11.11.2019. The petitioner has criminal antecedent as has been stated in paragraph no.3 of the present bail application. Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner, above named, is rejected.

This order has been passed in presence of Md. Aslam Ansari, counsel for the State.

(Shivaji Pandey, J) rishi/- U T