Mukesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.52043 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -642 Year- 2014 Thana -KHAZANIHAT District- PURNIA ====================================================== Vikram Rai @ Bittu Rai @ Vikram Ray @ Bittu Ray son of Shankar Rai, Resident of Village- New Colony Rajui Chowk, P.S. K. Hat (Sahayak), district Purnea .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with Criminal Miscellaneous No.3106 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -642 Year- 2014 Thana -KHAZANIHAT District- PURNIA ====================================================== Mukesh Kumar Son of Khushi Lal Sah Resident of vill-Barhi Hat.P.SK.Hat,Distt.-Purnea .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

(In Cr.Misc. No.52043 of 2014) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ram Prawesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Satyendra Prasad (App) (In Cr.Misc. No.3106 of 2015) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dr. Bidhu Ranjan For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar I(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL ORAL ORDER 17-03-2015 Both these applications arise out of K. Hat (Sahayak) P.S.Case No. 642 of 2014 as such, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. The petitioners seek bail in a case registered for offences

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.52043 of 2014 (4) dt.17-03-2015 2/3 punishable under Sections 394/302 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have not been named in the F.I.R. During investigation, Vikram Rai @ Bittu Rai has been apprehended by the police and he has made confession before the police. No stolen articles have been recovered from the possession of Viram Rai @ Bittu Rai. Articles recovered from the possession of co-accused, Mukesh Kumar are general items and there is no specific mark of those articles. The petitioners have no criminal antecedents. Learned counsel for the State submits that Vikram Rai @ Bittu Rai was well aware about the members of the family of the informant.

When the deceased was alone and other members had gone out, the occurrence was taken place by both the petitioners. On the basis of confessional statement of Vikram Rai @ Bittu Rai, the mobile used by Vikram Rai @ Bittu Rai with coaccused, has been recovered from his house, as disclosed by the petitioner and on the basis of confessional statement the stolen articles have been recovered from the possession of co-accused, Mukesh Kumar. After investigation, the police found sufficient material in the case diary, which shows that both the petitioners were involved in the occurrence. After investigation, charge sheet has already been submitted.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.52043 of 2014 (4) dt.17-03-2015 3/3 Considering the facts and circumstances, in my opinion, the petitioners do not deserve bail and their prayer for bail is rejected.

Let the trial be expedited.

(Amaresh Kumar Lal, J) Sudha/- U T