Patna High CourtCR. MISC./74252/2019bail rejected

Vikram Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2021-12-15Mr. Justice Sunil Kumar Panwar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.74252 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-188 Year-2016 Thana- SAUR BAZAR District- Saharsa ====================================================== VIKRAM KUMAR Son of Ran Bahadur Singh Resident of Village-Dhabauli Police Station-Sour Bazar (Patarghat O.P), District-Saharsa. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ashok Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Akhileshwar Dayal ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 15-12-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is expected to honour his undertaking to remove the defects, as pointed out by the office, when called upon to do so by the office. The petitioner is/are apprehending his/their arrest in connection with Sour Bazar (Paarghat O.P) P.S. Case No. 188 of 2016 for the offence registered under Sections 363, 328 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution case in brief is that on 22.05.2016 in the night at about 10:00 p.m. petitioner and Harsh Kumar Singh came at his Darwaja and took his brother Ankit Kumar Singh aged about 17 years, who till Monday did not return. Informant thereafter, inquired from Manvi, who told that on

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74252 of 2019(5) dt.15-12-2021 2/2 23.05.2016, Ankit telephoned her in fearful state that he is in problem and directed her to inform his family members. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in connection with the present case. He further submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

Learned counsel for the State, on perusal of the case diary, submits that the victim was recovered next day of the occurrence and he sustained injuries, inflicted by the accused persons. He further submits that the victim himself stated before the police about the occurrence and supported the prosecution case. As such, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. It is, accordingly, rejected.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) Jagdish/- U T