Vivek Kumar @ Butta @ Vivek Sonar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34065 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-384 Year-2022 Thana- BUNIYAD GANJ District- Gaya ====================================================== Vivek Kumar @ Butta @ Vivek Sonar Son of Krishna Prasad @ Krishna Prasad Swarnkar Resident of Village- Manpur Sonar Toli, Police StationMuffasil (Buniyadganj), Dist.- Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Aryan Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Pramod Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 20-07-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Buniyadganj P.S. Case No. 384 of 2022, lodged on 18.11.2022, under Section 386/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution, FIR has been lodged against five named accused persons including the present petitioner with allegation that the accused persons have demanded ransom on threat to kill the business person of the locality.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He submits that in the FIR there is general and omnibus allegation has been made against five accused persons. Counsel submits that there is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34065 of 2024(3) dt.20-07-2024 2/2 nothing specific alleged against the petitioner. He also submits that petitioner is in custody since 19.06.2023. There are six criminal cases pending against the petitioner but the counsel is not sure whether he is on bail in those cases or not. Counsel further submits that co-accused of this case has been granted bail by this Court vide order 06.12.2023 passed in Cr. Misc. No.64254 of 2023.

5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the case of the present petitioner is different from the case of the persons whose bail has been granted. He submits that the criminal antecedent of the coaccused is four; whereas the criminal antecedent of the present petitioner is six in number.

6. In the present facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner that he may renew his prayer for bail within nine months if the trial is not concluded. (Dr. Anshuman, J) Mkr./- U