Vikash Kumar @ Vikash Yadav @ Vikash Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12290 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-51 Year-2020 Thana- GHOSWARI District- Patna ====================================================== VIKASH KUMAR @ VIKASH YADAV @ VIKASH KUMAR YADAV Son of Chalitar Yadav @ Charitar Yadav Resident of Village - Paijana, Police Station - Ghoswari, District - Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ashok Kumar Kashyap For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Atul Chandra ====================================================== 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, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of learned A.D.J-Vth, Barh, Patna.

Petitioner in association with other co-accused is said to have murdered the brother of the informant. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12290 of 2022(4) dt.18-10-2022 2/2 petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that petitioner has been figured by the confessional statement of co-accused namely Dharamveer Yadav, only confessional statement there is nothing against the petitioner. He submits that petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. He further submits that petitioner has no criminal antecedent as stated in para-3 of this application.

Per contra, learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail petition submitted that petitioner has suppressed the criminal antecedent. In para 69 of the case diary it is clear that petitioner has one criminal antecedent, hence he does not deserve anticipatory bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that petitioner has suppressed criminal antecedent in the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Ghoswari P.S. Case No.51 of 2020. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) ajay/- U T