Single judge orally rejected a fresh anticipatory bail application filed by Vikash Kumar @ Vikash Kumar Yadav. Finding no fresh ground and regarding the grave nature of allegations, the court refused reconsideration and dismissed the petition.
Petition for anticipatory bail dismissed; prayer for reconsideration rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6655 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-414 Year-2021 Thana- SIWAN MUFFASIL District- Siwan
======================================================
VIKASH KUMAR @ VIKASH KUMAR YADAV Son of Surendra Yadav R/v- Chakiya, P.S.- Muffasil Siwan, Dist- Siwan
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Kumari Anupam For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Binod Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER
3 22-03-2023
Earlier prayer for bail of the was rejected vide order dated 23.08.2022. No fresh ground has been made out by the petitioner for reconsideration of his pre-arrest bail application.
Regard being had to the nature of allegation made in
the FIR, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
This case is accordingly dismissed.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
asmit/-
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner given the prior rejection and absence of fresh grounds?
Whether the impugned bail order require reconsideration based on the allegations in the FIR?
Vikash Kumar @ Vikash Kumar Yadav
The State of Bihar
Prabhat Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
