Vikki Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.75773 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-66 Year-2023 Thana- KAJI MUHAMMADPUR DistrictMuzaffarpur ====================================================== VIKKI KUMAR S/O LATE BIRENDRA PRASAD R/O MOHALLATEACHER COLONY, WARD NO. 09, P.S- CHAKIYA, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur Ms. Vaishnavi Singh For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Ram Anurag Singh For the State :
Mr. Akshay Lal Pandit ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 21-03-2024
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Kazimohammadpur Police Station Case No. 66 of 2023, dated 12.02.2023, disclosing offences under Sections 364/365/120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report, is that on 09.02.2023, father of the informant had gone to the house of Alam Azad @ Nabbe Alam to take his vehicle for purpose of driving it on hire basis. In the same evening, at about 08:00 PM, when the informant contacted his father, informant's father told that he was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75773 of 2023(4) dt.21-03-2024 2/3 going towards Motipur, but he did no return till late night. When the informant tried to contact his father on mobile phone, the same was found switched off. Thereafter, the informant tried to contact the vehicle owner, but he could not provide any information.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case on the basis of confessional statement of the co-accused Nitish Kumar @ Nitish Kumar Rai, from whose possession the vehicle, in question, has been recovered. Except the confessional statement, no other materials has come against the petitioner. He next submits that the informant's father was driver of the vehicle, owned by coaccused Nabbe Alam, and he used to drive the vehicle as a taxi under instruction from its owner.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the materials available on record.
6. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the vehicle, which was being driven by the father of the informant, has been recovered from the possession of the co-accused Nitish Kumar Rai, who in his confessional statement has said that the vehicle was given to him by
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75773 of 2023(4) dt.21-03-2024 3/3 the petitioner. The vicitm i.e. the informant's father, namely, Bahadur Rai, is still missing. First Information Report alleges serious offence and the case is still under investigation, accordingly, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of anticipatory bail.
7. This application is, accordingly, rejected. (Anil Kumar Sinha, J) ashwani/- U T