← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./33003/2021dismissed

Amit Kumar @ Vikki Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2021-09-08Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33003 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-452 Year-2019 Thana- KUDHNI District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Amit Kumar @ Vikki Kumar (Male), aged about 25 years, son of Late Satyendra Rai, resident of Village - Bishunpur Gidha, Police station - Maniyari, District - Muzaffarpur.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Amit Anand, Advocate For the Opposite Party :

Ms. Pushpa Sinha-1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 08-09-2021 The matter has been taken up for hearing on-line because of COVID-19 pandemic restrictions.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This application for grant of regular bail arises out of Kudhani (Turki O.P.) P.S. Case No. 452 of 2019 registered for the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioner's prayer for regular bail was earlier rejected by an order dated 05.06.2020 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1590 of 2020 after noticing the fact that on the basis of his confessional statement looted truck was recovered.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33003 of 2021(2) dt.08-09-2021 2/2 petitioner has submitted that mere recovery of looted truck on the basis of declaration made by the petitioner cannot establish the petitioner's culpability. He has submitted that since the petitioner has remained in custody for nearly two years and there is no progress at the trial, he deserves privilege of regular bail.

Considering the gravity of the accusation, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of regular bail for the present. However, it is observed that if there is no substantial progress at the trial, the petitioner shall be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after six months.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) P.Tiwari/- U T