Vikki Kumar @ Rahul Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.72396 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-274 Year-2023 Thana- SAMASTIPUR MUFFASIL DistrictSamastipur ====================================================== VIKKI KUMAR @ RAHUL KUMAR SON OF SUBODH RAI @ SUBODH RAY RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - HAKIMABAD, P.S. - SAMASTIPUR MUFFASIL, DISTRICT - SAMASTIPUR ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Mahendra Pratap, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Shailendra Kumar, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 10-01-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Samastipur Muffasil P.S. Case No. 274 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 382 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. As per prosecution case, petitioner alongwith other came on motorcycle and snatched the informant's bag containing Rs. 1,10,000/- (cash), two mobiles and important documents and thereafter they fled away towards Chandni Chowk. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that on the confession of the petitioner, the recovery of looted articles have been made from co-accused Ajay Kumar. Petitioner is in custody since 15.06.2023 and bears criminal antecedent of one

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72396 of 2023(3) dt.10-01-2024 2/2 case in which he is on bail. Petitioner is quite innocent and falsely been implicated in the present case.

The learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner by submitting that the petitioner is named in F.I.R. and upon his confessional statement, the recovery of looted articles have been made from co-accused Ajay Kumar, and hence, he does not deserve bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation levelled against the petitioner as well as material available on record, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

However, the learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial within six months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order to the court concerned. If the trial is not concluded within the stipulated period, petitioner may renew his prayer for bail.

(Alok Kumar Pandey, J) alok/- U T