Vicky Mehta @ Vikash Kumar Mehta, v. The State Of Bihar,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32976 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-208 Year-2019 Thana- PURAINI District- Madhepura ====================================================== Vicky Mehta @ Vikash Kumar Mehta, Son of Chandeshwari Mehta, Resident of Village - Gogiraj, Police Station- Puraini, District- Madhepura. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Uday Chand Prasad For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Umanath Mishra, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 25-02-2021 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 19.05.2020 in connection with Puraini P.S. Case No. 208 of 2019 for the alleged offences under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in connection with alleged murder of Munna Yadav. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been implicated merely on suspicion and he has not been named in the FIR, which is instituted against three unknown persons. Except suspicion there is no objective material to connect the petitioner with the alleged occurrence. It is further stated that at the time of occurrence the petitioner was in jail in connection with Puraini P.S. Case No. 192 of 2019 and thereafter

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32976 of 2020(5) dt.25-02-2021 2/2 he was remanded by the police in the present case.

4. Learned APP on the other hand opposes the bail petition on the basis of paragraphs 18 and 24 of the case diary, inter alia, containing materials against the petitioner. It is indicated that an extortion call was made in conference call with co-accused Manjay Mehta and the petitioner, demanding payment of Rs. 10 lakhs with threat to kill in case of failure. The criminal antecedents of the petitioner have also been pointed out as enumerated in paragraph 3 of the petition, with details of as many as 13 cases of serious nature in which the petitioner is made accused.

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