Vikram Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.68110 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-301 Year-2018 Thana- SAHEBGANJ District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Vikram Kumar S/o Bhushan Bhagat R/o Village- Situali Ranipur, P.S.- Sahebganj, District- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Md. Mushtaque Alam, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 01-10-2024 Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Sahebganj P.S. Case No. 301 of 2018, giving rise to S.T. No.288 of 2019, lodged on 09.08.2018, under Sections 394/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution, FIR has been lodged against unknown accused persons against whom there is an allegation of robbery of rupees eighteen lakhs from ATM upon killing of gunman.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Counsel submits that his name has figured in this case by virtue of confessional statement of co-accused Vicky Kumar and one co-

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68110 of 2024(2) dt.01-10-2024 2/2 accused has been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.08.2019 passed in Cr. Misc. No.34549 of 2019.

5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that it is true that the name of the petitioner has figured in this case by virtue of confessional statement of co-accused but it is also true that not only the petitioner but his father's name has also figured in this case by virtue of confessional statement. His father has taken bail on 08.08.2019 in Cr. Misc. No.34549 of 2019 and from 2019 to 2024 he had not appeared and due to his non-appearance the delay has taken place in the trial. Counsel submits that in the rejection order it has been clearly indicated that what was the use of the looted money by the accused persons and as such he submits that this case not only based on confession rather on corroboration also.

6. In this view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

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