Patna High CourtCR. MISC./44756/2021dismissed

Vikash Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2021-08-25Mr. Justice Vikash Jain2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44756 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-123 Year-2020 Thana- GAYA MUFASIL District- Gaya ====================================================== Vikash Kumar, aged about 20 years (Male), son of Shivan Ravidas, resident of Village - Samalgarhi, P.S. - Tankuppa, District- Gaya. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Shailesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Dr. Ajeet Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 25-08-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State through video conference.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed an undertaking that all defects pointed out by the stamp reporter shall be removed, and compliance with the conditions of the notices of this Court with regard to acceptance of e-filing shall be made, without delay immediately upon resumption of normal physical functioning of the Court, and in any event within one month thereof.

3. The petitioner, who is in custody since 03.04.2020, has renewed his prayer for bail in connection with Moffasil P.S. Case No. 123 of 2020 (Sessions Trial No. 189 of 2020), having earlier been rejected by order dated 15.01.2021

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44756 of 2021(2) dt.25-08-2021 2/2 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 32164 of 2020 for the offences alleged under Sections 379, 413, 414, 420, 467, 468 and 471/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates his earlier submission to the effect that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in connection with the recovery of stolen motorcycle of the informant.

5. Learned APP appears and has been heard.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, in the absence of any material change in circumstance, this Court is not inclined to take a different view of the matter for grant of bail to the petitioner. The petition, accordingly, stands dismissed.

7. 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-2 hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.

(Vikash Jain, J) pawan/- U T