Vikash Kumar Singh And Anr vs. The State Of Bihar
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, Vikash Kumar Singh and Aditya Kumar Singh, are in custody in connection with Katoria P.S. Case No. 162 of 2018, facing charges under Sections 457, 380, and 411 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners' counsel argued that they have no criminal antecedents and their names were disclosed by a co-accused. Furthermore, no items were recovered from the possession of the petitioners. The petitioners have been in custody since September 11, 2018. The court was considering their bail application.
Held
The Court decided to grant bail to the petitioners, Vikash Kumar Singh and Aditya Kumar Singh. The reasoning was based on the submissions made by the petitioners' counsel: their lack of criminal antecedents, the disclosure of their names by a co-accused, and the fact that nothing was recovered from their possession. The Court considered that the petitioners had been in custody since September 11, 2018. The ratio decidendi is that in cases where an accused has no prior criminal history, their involvement is based on disclosure by a co-accused, and no recovery is made from their person, bail should be considered favorably, especially after a significant period of incarceration. The operative direction was to enlarge the petitioners on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- each with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Banka. A specific condition was imposed on the bailors: they should be local traders having a GST registration number.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail, considering their lack of criminal antecedents, the disclosure of their names by a co-accused, and the absence of recovery from their possession, in connection with Katoria P.S. Case No. 162 of 2018 for offences under Sections 457, 380, and 411 of the Indian Penal Code? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioners argued that they should be granted bail due to their clean criminal record, the fact that their involvement was disclosed by a co-accused, and that nothing was recovered from them. They also highlighted their period of custody. Revenue/State's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the State or the revenue in opposition to the bail application.
Sections Cited
Section 457, Section 380, Section 411
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER 2 04-02-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. Petitioners are in custody in connection with Katoria P.S. Case No. 162 of 2018 for the offence under sections 457, 380 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have no criminal antecedent. He submits that name of these petitioners was disclosed by co-accused. Nothing was recovered from the possession of the petitioners. Considering the fact that petitioners have no criminal antecedent and they are in custody since 11.9.2018, let the petitioners, named above, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6131 of 2019(2) dt.04-02-2019 2/2 bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri Roshan Kumar, Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Banka, in connection with Katoria P.S. Case No. 162 of 2018 subject to the condition that the bailors should be local trader having GST registration number. Ravi/- (Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) U T
Reproduced from the public record of the Patna High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.