Ranjan Kumar @ Vikky Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32179 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-388 Year-2019 Thana- MAKHDUMPUR District- Jehanabad ====================================================== Ranjan Kumar @ Vikky Kumar Son of Ram Swarath Singh Resident of Village - Kharauna, P.S.- Naubatpur, District - Patna ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner :
Mr. Dewendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State :
Mr. J.K. Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 29-01-2021 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 05.11.2019 in connection with Sessions Trial No. 2969 of 2019 arising out of Makhdumpur P.S. Case No. 388 of 2019 for the offences alleged under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in connection with alleged looting of gold chain and a bag containing Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 60,000/- from the informant by two persons including the petitioner who came on a motorcycle when the informant was going on a tempo. It is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32179 of 2020(3) dt.29-01-2021 2/2 submitted that according to the F.I.R., the two miscreants had covered their faces with handkerchief but the petitioner has been identified by the informant in course of investigation. No recovery has been made from the possession of the petitioner who has already suffered about 15 months in custody.
4. Learned APP appears and refers to paragraph-27 of the case diary to submit that the informant has identified the petitioner as one of the two miscreants who looted the articles from him. He also refers to paragraph-3 of the petition wherein it has been stated that the petitioner is accused in three prior cases of similar nature.
5. Having regard to the nature of accusations and the gravity of the offence alleged, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of bail to the petitioner. The bail 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) Ibrar//- U T