Vikash Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.63752 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -81 Year- 2017 Thana -KINJAR District- JEHANABAD ======================================================

1. Vikash Kumar Son of Uday Singh, Resident of Village-Mardan Bigha, P.S.-Kinjar, District-Arwal. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhirendra Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Ramchandra Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 11-01-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

Petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with Kinjar P.S. Case No. 81 of 2017 registered for the offences under Sections 394/414 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the FIR this petitioner along with other two accomplices came on a motorcycle and pressurized the informant who was a tempo driver to take them to Jehanabad. Thereafter, two miscreants sat on the tempo and one of them tied belt in the neck of the informant and other accused persons snatched Rs. 800 from his pocket and other miscreants snatched Rs. 300/- from the Dickey of tempo. This petitioner was caught hold by the informant with the help of other passengers while the other one succeeded in fleeing away. It is further alleged that R.775/- has been recovered from

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.63752 of 2017 (2) dt.11-01-2018 the pocket of this petitioner and the motorcycle has been found to be stolen one. In the impugned order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has taken note of the fact that the police has recovered a sum of Rs.775/- and motorcycle from the possession of petitioner and doctor has found abrasion on the neck of the informant.

Learned counsel for the State submits that the nature of allegations coupled with the fact that this petitioner has got a similar kind of case under Sections 379 and 414 of the IPC being Jehanabad P.S. Case No.29 of 2017 would suggest that he has now developed the habit of committing offence like the present one. Therefore, his prayer for bail may be rejected. Considering the facts and circumstances particularly the mode and manner in which the alleged offence is said to have been committed which has been supported by the injury report, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner in connection with Kinjar P.S. Case No.81 of 2017 pending in the court of learned ACJM-III, Arwal at this stage.

The application is dismissed.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) sushma/- U T