Patna High CourtCR. MISC./60505/2021withdrawn

Vikash Roy @ Rajesh Kumar Roy v. The State Of Bihar

2022-03-21Mr. Justice Satyavrat Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.60505 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-88 Year-2021 Thana- SARAI RANJAN District- Samastipur ====================================================== Vikash Roy @ Rajesh Kumar Roy S/O Bhagya Narayan Roy R/O VillageKeota, P.S-Dalsingsarai, District-Samastipur. ... ... Petitioner/S

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Lakshmindra Kumar Yadav For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Rajiv Nayan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 21-03-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sarairanjan P. S. Case No.88 of 2021, instituted for the offences under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 26.08.2021, charge-sheet has been submitted in the case and has antecedent of five cases. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the informant alleges that his brother was returning to C.S.P. with Rs.3,60,000/- when he was intercepted by five unknown criminals, who fired indiscriminately killing the deceased and fled with the money.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60505 of 2021(2) dt.21-03-2022 2/2 F.I.R. was against unknown and the name of this petitioner transpired in the confessional statement of Rahul Kumar, as such, confessional statement does not have any evidentiary value in a Court of law.

The learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the bail application and submits that no doubt, the name of this petitioner transpired in the confessional statement, but then has antecedent of five cases.

At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the bail application with a liberty to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.

Permission is accorded.

Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty aforesaid.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T