Vickky Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 24957 of 2017 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-82 Year-2017 Thana- Patliputra District- Patna ====================================================== Vickky Kumar, S/o Shri Umesh Singh, Resident of Chanchal Apartment, Flat No. 305, Nehru Nagar, Police Station- Patliputra, District- Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Dipak Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Damodar Pd. Tiwary ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 3.

21-09-2017 Heard Sri Dipak Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Damodar Prasad Tiwary, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.

The sole petitioner, apprehending his arrest in Patliputra P.S. Case No. 82 of 2017 registered for offence under Sections 341, 342, 332, 333, 308, 307, 379, 427, 353/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 45 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, has prayed for grant of bail in the event of his arrest or surrender.

It was alleged in the prosecution case that police had apprehended one person, who had taken liquor and thereafter, number of persons assembled there, assaulted the police personnel and the person, who was apprehended, was got forcibly freed.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.24957 of 2017(3) dt.21-09-2017 2/3 Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that save and except allegation that petitioner was one of the member of the said mob, there is no specific allegation against the petitioner. He has also argued that during investigation, no further material has been collected against the petitioner. However, there is allegation against the petitioner that he was also one of the member of the mob, which has assaulted the police and forcibly freed an accused, who was arrested as well as there is antecedent of the petitioner, which has been mentioned in paragraph - 3 of the petition, which suggests that he was also accused in following cases:- "(i) Patliputra P.S. Case No.

01 of 2016 for offence under Sections 341, 342, 323, 504, 308, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code, (ii) Budha Colony P.S. Case No. 105 of 2013 for offence under Sections 307, 447, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, (iii) Kotwali P.S. Case No. 308 of 2007 for offence under Sections 25(1-b)a, 26, 35 of Arms Act, 1959, and (iv) Jakkanpur P.S. Case No. 40 of 2005 for offence under Sections 386, 308/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959."

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.24957 of 2017(3) dt.21-09-2017 3/3 Considering the aforesaid fact, I am of the opinion that there is no reason to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail. Dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J.) anay U T