Patna High CourtCR. MISC./21866/2020dismissed

Rahul Kumar @ Vicky v. The State Of Bihar

2020-07-09Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21866 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-34 Year-2020 Thana- BHAGWAN BAZAR District- Saran ====================================================== RAHUL KUMAR @ VICKY Son of Late Vijay Prasad Resident of Mohalla - Mauna Chowk, P.S.- Chapra Town, District - Saran at Chapra ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. R. Sharan, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 09-07-2020 This matter is taken up for consideration through Video Conferencing under the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.P.P for the State. The petitioner seeks bail in Bhagwanbazar P.S. Case No. 34 of 2020, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 399, 402, 414 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 25(1-b)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act.

It is alleged that accused persons including this petitioner were preparing for committing dacoity. The police during raid arrested this petitioner and from his possession one loaded pistol, one mobile and one stolen motorcycle were recovered.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21866 of 2020(2) dt.09-07-2020 2/2 It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Nothing has been recovered from his possession. Petitioner is in custody since 18.01.2020.

Learned APP however, vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that petitioner has got criminal antecedent and arms and ammunition were recovered from his possession.

Considering the facts aforesaid and the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner abovenamed on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) vinita/- U T