Vijay Thakur v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36700 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-926 Year-2019 Thana- SAHARSA District- Saharsa ====================================================== VIJAY THAKUR Son of Darogi Thakur Resident of Village - Hasuliya, P.S.- Simri Bakhtiyarpur, District - Saharsa.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Jai Narain Thakur, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 13-04-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State through video conference. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes 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.

2. The petitioner is in custody since 16.10.2019 in connection with Saharsa Sadar P.S. Case No. 926 of 2019 for the alleged offences under Sections 395/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in connection with alleged looting of the informant's shop by 4-5 miscreants including the petitioner. It is submitted that in any event no incriminating goods have been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. The petitioner has already suffered custody for almost one and half years since 16.10.2019.

4. Learned APP appears and opposes the bail petition,

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36700 of 2020(5) dt.13-04-2021 2/2 submitting that the petitioner has been arrested at the spot along with co-accused Ranjan Yadav while other miscreants managed to flee away. The petitioner is accused in as many as 9 prior cases of similar and more serious nature and does not deserve the privilege of bail.

5. Having regard to the nature of accusations, gravity of offence alleged and the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, 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