Vivek Kumar Vs. the State of Jharkhand - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1024855
CourtJharkhand High Court
Decided OnAug-19-2013
AppellantVivek Kumar
RespondentThe State of Jharkhand
Excerpt:
in the high court of jharkhand at ranchi b. a. no. 3329 of 2013 vivek kumar ... petitioner versus the state of jharkhand ... opposite party -------- coram : honble mr. justice h. c. mishra ------ for the petitioner : mr.nawin kumar singh, advocate. for the state : a.p.p. ------ 3/ 19.08.2013 heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned a.p.p. for the prosecution. the petitioner has been made accused in connection with nagri p.s. case no. 153 of 2012 corresponding to g.r. no. 6640 of 2012 for the offence under sections 392 and 395/ 412 of the indian penal code. the case relates to bank dacoity and it appears from the impugned order that rs.50,000/- was recovered from the house of the petitioner and rs. 1 (one) lakh was also recovered on the basis of confessional statement of the petitioner from m/s hari om constructions. in the facts of this case, i am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner, vivek kumar on bail. accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. ( h. c. mishra, j.) bs/
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No. 3329 of 2013 Vivek Kumar ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party -------- CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA ------ For the Petitioner : Mr.Nawin Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the State : A.P.P. ------ 3/ 19.08.2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the Prosecution. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Nagri P.S. Case No. 153 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No. 6640 of 2012 for the offence under Sections 392 and 395/ 412 of the Indian Penal Code. The case relates to bank dacoity and it appears from the impugned order that Rs.50,000/- was recovered from the house of the petitioner and Rs. 1 (one) Lakh was also recovered on the basis of confessional statement of the petitioner from M/s Hari Om Constructions. In the facts of this case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner, Vivek Kumar on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. ( H. C. Mishra, J.) BS/