Vinod Rai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32166 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3 Year-2020 Thana- GANGABRIDGE District- Vaishali ====================================================== VINOD RAI Son of Shatrudhan Ray Resident of Village- Terasiya, P.S.- Ganga Bridge, District- Vaishali.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mrs. Bela Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. J.K.Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 04-01-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed an undertaking to remove all defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter as and when required. It is accordingly directed that all defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter be removed within one month hereof.

2. The petitioner is in custody since 13.01.2020 in connection with Ganga Bridge P.S. Case No. 03 of 2020 for the alleged offences under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in connection with taking away the scooty of the informant at point of pistol. There is delay in institution of the FIR on 10.01.2020 for the alleged occurrence of 09.01.2020 and moreover the FIR is against three unknown persons. It is submitted that the seizure list showing recovery of the scooty from the petitioner does not fulfil the requirement of law as it does not contain the signature of the petitioner. The petitioner has already suffered one year in custody and claims clean antecedents.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32166 of 2020(2) dt.04-01-2021 2/2

4. Learned APP appears and opposes the bail petition submitting that the seizure list (Annexure-2) shows recovery of the stolen scooty from the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner has three criminal antecedents as enumerated in para 3 of the petition.

5. Having regard to the nature of accusations and gravity of offence alleged, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of bail to the petitioner. The petition stands dismissed.

6. Office shall follow-up to ensure that all defects are removed and compliance with the notices of this Court are made by the petitioner within the stipulated time provided in para 1 hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.

(Vikash Jain, J) Chandran/- U T