Vikash Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32164 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-123 Year-2020 Thana- GAYA MUFASIL District- Gaya ====================================================== VIKASH KUMAR Son of Shivan Ravidas Resident of Village - Samalgarhi, P.S.- Tankuppa, District - Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Shailesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. J.K.Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 15-01-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed an undertaking to remove all the 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 03.04.2020 in connection with Moffasil P.S. Case No. 123 of 2020 for the alleged offences under Sections 379, 413, 414, 420, 467, 468 and 471/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in connection with the recovery of stolen motorcycle of the informant. The petitioner has not been named in the FIR, which has been lodged against unknown. It is submitted that the petitioner has been mis-identified on the basis of CCTV footage and the motor-cycle recovered from his house is a different one. The petitioner claims clean antecedents, but he

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32164 of 2020(3) dt.15-01-2021 2/2 was later remanded in two other cases.

4. Learned APP appears and opposes the petition, submitting on the basis of paragraph 25 of the case diary that several incriminating articles such as registration papers/owner books of several vehicles, master-keys of motor-cycles and several number plates of vehicles have been recovered from the house of the petitioner.

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 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) HR/- U T