Vikas Rai @ Vikas Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19664 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-130 Year-2018 Thana- DIGHA District- Patna ====================================================== VIKAS RAI @ VIKAS KUMAR S/O NAKAT GOP @ RAJESH RAI R/o village- Digha, P.S.- Digha, District- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Patanjali Rishi, Advocate Ms. Prerna Rishi, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 09-01-2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in a case registered under sections 302, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act. As per the prosecution case, the four named accused persons including the petitioner herein as also one Sunny Rai and four unknown accused persons are said to have resorted to firing as a result of which the father of the informant was seriously injured. He was taken to the hospital where he was declared dead.

It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The allegations are general and omnibus in nature.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19664 of 2022(5) dt.09-01-2023 2/2 Although as per information received, the application for bail of one of the co-accused has been rejected, however, the case of the petitioner also stands on a similar footing to that of coaccused Sunny Rai who has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 15.12.2021 passed in Cr. Misc. no.64503 of 2021. The petitioner is in custody since 9.3.2021 and undertakes to cooperate in the trial.

Heard learned A.P.P. for the State.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the nature of allegation in the F.I.R., the material which has transpired in course of investigation and the contents of the post-mortem report, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the same is rejected for the present.

Liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail on framing of charge or after six months, whichever is later.

(Partha Sarthy, J) Saurabh/- U T