Vijay Yadav @ Vijay Rai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12363 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-14 Year-2021 Thana- BHANGWANPUR HAT District- Siwan ====================================================== VIJAY YADAV @ VIJAY RAI Son of Sadhu Rai @ Birendra Rai Resident of Village - Panditpur, P.s.- Janta Bazaar, Distt.- Saran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ayush Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Binod Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 18-10-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remove the defects within three weeks. In the eventuality of non-removal of defects within undertaken period, the office will place the matter before the Bench.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan.

Petitioner in association with other co-accused is said to have killed the son of the informant.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12363 of 2022(3) dt.18-10-2022 2/2 petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. during investigation one co-accused Deepu Kumar was apprehended by the Police and on this confessional statement petitioner was made accused in the present case. He submits that there is no eye witness to support the prosecution case. He submits that there is no any article or weapon recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. He further submits that petitioner has three criminal antecedents as stated in para-3 of this application.

Per contra, learned APP for the State vehemently opposes the bail petition and submitted that petitioner is involved in the present case.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined the enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Bhagwanpur Hat P.S. Case No. 14 of 2021. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) ajay/- U T