Patna High CourtCR. MISC./2320/2017rejected

Vijay Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2017-01-31Mr. Justice Rajendra Kumar Mishra2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2320 of 2017 (2) dt.31-01-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.2320 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -129 Year- 2016 Thana -HAZIPUR INDUSTRIAL DistrictVAISHALI(HAJIPUR) ====================================================== Vijay Kumar, son of Rambriksh Singh of village Nawada Khurd, P.S. Ganga Bridge, District Vaishali.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ram Swarup Prasad, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 31-01-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner is accused in connection with Area P.S. Case No. 129 of 2016 registered under Sections 467, 468, 469, 470, 471 and 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Vaishali at Hajipur. The accusation is that on receiving secret information about movement of criminals boarding on Bolero and motorcycle, the police reached at the Hilalpur Dhala and started search of vehicle. One person on seeing the police personal started to flee away but he was apprehended, who disclosed his name as Ranjit Ram. On search, mobile sets were recovered from his possession

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2320 of 2017 (2) dt.31-01-2017 and he did not produce any paper regarding the motorcycle and he also disclosed that his associate is coming behind him on Bolero Vehicle. When the police tried to stop the Bolero then one person started to flee away but he was apprehended, who disclosed the name Vijay Kumar (petitioner). On search, petitioner also did not produce any paper regarding the Bolero Vehicle. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has falsely been implicated in this case and is in custody since 27.10.2016.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the criminal antecedent of the petitioner, I am not inclined to allow his prayer for bail. Accordingly, his prayer for grant of bail stands rejected.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) Bhardwaj/- U T