Patna High CourtCR. MISC./29320/2021dismissed

Vikash Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2021-08-18Mr. Justice S. Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29320 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-810 Year-2020 Thana- BETTIAH CITY District- West Champaran ====================================================== VIKASH KUMAR Son of Birendra Sah Resident of Village - navrangabag Ward No. 33, Police station - Bettiah Town, District - West Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sachida Nand Rai, Adv For the Opposite Party/s :

Mrs.Suman Kumari Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL ORDER 18-08-2021 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioner seeks bail in Bettiah Town P.S. Case No. 810 of 2020 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 461 and 379 of the IPC and later on sections 411, 413, and 414 of the Indian Penal Code were added.

FIR has been registered on the basis of written complaint of Informant in which he has alleged that unknown accused stolen away 66 pieces of Smartphone amounting to Rs. 7,70,000/- and mobile accessories worth Rs. 50,000/- from the shop of informant in the night of 18.12.2020. FIR is against unknown.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case on mere

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29320 of 2021(2) dt.18-08-2021 2/2 suspicion only. Petitioner is not named in the FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the alleged mobile phones recovered from the house of petitioner has not been put on Test Identification Parade. Petitioner is in custody since 22.12.2020. From perusal of para 3 of the petition, it appears that petitioner has criminal history and has been earlier involved in similar nature of offence and also the fact that the recovery has been made from the house of petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

However, petitioner is granted liberty to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.

(S. Kumar, J) ranjan/- U