Rahul Kumar @ Vicky v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36223 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-306 Year-2019 Thana- EKMA District- Saran ====================================================== RAHUL KUMAR @ VICKY Son of Late Vijay Prasad Resident of Mohalla - Mauna Chowk, P.S.- Chapra Town, District - Saran at Chapra ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Dewendra Narayan Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Raj Ballabh Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 05-03-2021 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This application for grant of regular bail arises out of Ekma P.S. Case No. 306 of 2019, disclosing offences punishable under Sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code.

A Branch Manager of the State Bank of India, Bharhopur Branch is the informant, who has alleged that at the afternoon of 25.11.2019, five miscreants entered into the Branch and all of them brandished pistols. One of the five persons entered into the cabin of the informant and demanded key of the cash room. The informant was badly assaulted by the miscreants as he refused to hand over the key. It is further alleged that the cash amount deposited by the customers available in the bank were looted and they took away the hard disk of CCTV camera fixed in the bank premises and the mobile phone. The petitioner's name surfaced on the basis of his confessional statement recorded in another case.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36223 of 2020(3) dt.05-03-2021 2/2 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that except for the confessional statement, there is no material against him, who is in custody since 01.04.2020. He has also argued that on the basis of his confessional statement, the petitioner has been implicated in three other cases, disclosing offences punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

Be that as it may, considering the gravity of the offence and the nature of the materials available in the case diary, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of regular bail for the present, particularly in the light of the criminal antecedent as mentioned in paragraph 3 of the application.

This application is, accordingly, rejected.

The petitioner shall, however, be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail within six months from today, if, in the meanwhile, there is no substantial progress in the trial.

arun/- (Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) U