Vikram Kumar Singh @ Banti Singh @ Vikram Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.83023 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-143 Year-2024 Thana- SARAI District- Vaishali ====================================================== Vikram Kumar Singh @ Banti Singh @ Vikram Kumar Son of Late Dileep Singh @ Dilip Kumar village- Akhtiyarpur Petera, Ps- Sarai, Dist- Vaishali ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Anil Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Madhura Nand Jha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH ORAL ORDER 04-12-2024 Heard Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Madhura Nand Jha, learned APP for the State.

2. Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Sarai P.S. Case No. 143/ 2024 dated 29.06.2024 registered for the offence(s) punishable under Section(s) 411, 413 and 414 of the IPC.

3. The main submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that the petitioner has been languishing in jail since 29.06.2024, though, against him there are criminal antecedents of six cases out of which only three cases relate to the offences under section(s) 379, 380 of the IPC and the petitioner has been made accused in two cases on the basis of confessional statement of coaccused with whom petitioner has bad relation on account of the murder of his brother committed by one Munna Kumar, who made the confessional statement in two cases revealing the petitioner's involvement and the rest cases related to the Excise Act in which the petitioner is on bail. It is further submitted that investigation has been

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83023 of 2024(2) dt.04-12-2024 2/2 completed against the petitioner and most of the witnesses of the prosecution including the witnesses of seizure are police personnel, so, there is no chance of misuse of privilege of bail if he is released from the jail.

4. Learned APP appearing for the State opposes the bail prayer of the petitioner and submits that petitioner is habitual in committing the offences under section(s) 379 and 411 of the IPC.

5. Heard both the sides, perused the F.I.R. and the impugned order.

6. Admittedly against the petitioner, there are six criminal cases in addition to the present matter out of which two relate to the theft and in the instant matter, as per allegation, the petitioner was apprehended with a stolen motor cycle, in my opinion, it is not a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer stands rejected.

7. However, the petitioner is given liberty to renew his bail prayer after framing of charge upon him by the trial court. (Shailendra Singh, J) BKS/- U T