Vikram Kumar @ Guddu Kumar vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 1868 Patna

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
             CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 34004 of 2020
  Arising Out of PS Case No.-394 Year-2020 Thana- HAJIPUR SADAR District- Vaishali
======================================================

Vikram Kumar @ Guddu Kumar, Male, aged about 26 years, Son of Jagarnath Ray, Resident of Village- Mohabbatpur Jagdamba Sthan, PS- Ganga Bridge, District- Vaishali.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar

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

For the Petitioner/s    :        Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate
For the State           :        Ms. Sharda Kumari, APP

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 06-04-2021

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Ms. Sharda Kumari, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the State.

3. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with

Hajipur Sadar PS Case No. 394 of 2020 dated 08.07.2020,

instituted under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The allegation against the petitioner is that he was

party to the loot in the house of the informant at gun point in Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34004 of 2020 dt.06-04-2021

which Mangalsutra worth Rs. 10,000/-, two sets of jhumka,

Aadhar Card of the informant and her husband were taken and

also two mobile sets.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is

not named in the FIR and only on the confessional statement of

co-accused, he has been made an accused. It was submitted that

there is nothing to connect the petitioner with the crime as there is

no recovery from his place. It was further submitted that the

petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

6. Learned APP submitted that the petitioner's presence

near the place of occurrence has been found from the CCTV

recording and, thus, he cannot plead innocence. It was further

submitted that co-accused taking the name of the petitioner also

cannot indicate false implication as there is no enmity between the

parties. Learned counsel submitted that the presence of the

petitioner at the time and place of occurrence has been noted in

the order dated 05.09.2020 of the learned Additional District and

Sessions Judge-XI, Vaishali at Hajipur in Anticipatory Bail

Petition No. 1823 of 2020, by which the prayer for anticipatory

bail of the petitioner was rejected.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34004 of 2020 dt.06-04-2021

7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the

case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court

is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

P. Kumar

AFR/NAFR U T