Vicky Mehta @ Vikash Kumar Mehta v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19151 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-192 Year-2019 Thana- PURAINI District- Madhepura ====================================================== VICKY MEHTA @ VIKASH KUMAR MEHTA S/O CHANDESHWARI MEHTA R/O VILLAGE- GOGIRAJ, P.S. PURAINI, DISTRICTMADHEPURA ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 15-11-2021 It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that supplementary affidavit for removal of the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter is ready but could not be filed as the physical filing is not being accepted. The same shall be filed within two weeks from the date of physical filing being accepted.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in a case registered under sections 341, 323, 354B, 386, 387, 379, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. As per the prosecution case, it is stated that Md. Sajjak along with the two other accused persons entered the shop of the informant variously armed and on the point of pistol demanded rangdari of Rs.2 lacs. Thereafter it is stated that Md.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19151 of 2021(4) dt.15-11-2021 2/2 Sajjak took away Rs.25,000/ forcibly, assaulted and misbehaved with his wife and on the co-villagers coming there, escaped. It is further stated that on the informant going to complain to his father, he was threatened.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. His name transpired in the confessional statement of a co-accused made before police. No incriminating article has been recovered from his possession. The cause of his false implication is his antecedent. He is in custody since 23.12.2019.
Heard learned A.P.P. for the State.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the facts of the case together with the petitioner having remained in custody since 23.12.2019, the Court directs the petitioner to be enlarged on bail in connection with Puraini P.S. Case no.192 of 2019 on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/ (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Udakishunganj, Madhepura. (Partha Sarthy, J) Saurabh/- U T