Vicky Patel @ Vicky Chaudhary @ Vikash Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.62928 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-65 Year-2021 Thana- SASARAM MUFFSIL District- Rohtas ====================================================== Vicky Patel @ Vicky Chaudhary @ Vikash Kumar Son Of Sunil Chaudhary @ Sunil Kumar Chaudhary R/O Village/Mohalla- Dawanpur, P.S.- Sasaram (M), District- Rohtas At Sasaram ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Raghunandan Kumar Singh, Adv.

Ms. Riya Singh, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ajay Kumar No. 2, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 22-02-2023 Let the defect(s), if any, be removed within two weeks from today.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Sasaram (M) P.S. Case No. 65 of 2021 lodged under Section 412 of the I.P.C.

As per the F.I.R., the criminal case has been lodged against 14 unknown criminals against whom, allegation of loot of pick-up van, ATM Card, Aadhar Card and documents of the vehicle are there.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and he is in custody since

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.62928 of 2022(2) dt.22-02-2023 2/2 27.07.2022. There are 2 criminal cases pending against him. Counsel further submits that the similarly situated co-accused persons have been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide Annexure-2 and 3 which is on record. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that if bail shall be granted to the petitioner, the trial shall not be concluded and petitioner shall start creating hurdle in the trial.

Upon specific query from the counsel for the petitioner that whether charge has been framed in this case or not, counsel submits that he is not sure that whether charge has been framed or not.

In the present facts and circumstances of this case and the submissions made above, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at present but liberty is hereby granted that he may renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge. The Trial Court is directed to release him on bail imposing its own conditions, so that he may not evade his appearance during trial.

With this observation, the bail application stands rejected.

(Dr. Anshuman, J.) sadique/- U T