Vikash Kumar vs State Of Bihar

The matter has been heard via video conferencing due to circumstances prevailing on account of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rana Randhir Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (hereinafter

referred to as the ‘APP’) for the State.

The petitioner is in custody in connection with Mushahari PS Case No. 124 of 2019 dated 03.05.2019, instituted under Section 394 of the Indian

Penal Code.

The allegation against the petitioner is that he was one of the three persons who had looted the motorcycle and mobile phone of the informant while

he was returning from market.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the FIR is against unknown persons and despite it being written in the FIR that the informant could

identify the miscreants in the Test Identification Parade (TIP), the same has not been held. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has no

criminal antecedent and was arrested on 22.05.2019 on the basis of confessional statement of another co-accused in Minapur PS Case No. 130 of

2019 and thereafter has been implicated in six cases, including the present case, and has been remanded in the present case on 04.07.2019. Learned

counsel submitted that without any complicity in the crime alleged and without him being identified by the informant he is languishing in custody.

At this stage, when the Court called upon learned counsel to take a stand whether he was ready for conducting TIP, he categorically stated that the

petitioner was ready for such exercise.

Learned APP also submitted that this Court may direct the Court below to get TIP of the petitioner by the informant of the present case and based

on the same, the Court may indicate consequences thereof.

Having regard to the categorical stand taken by learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned APP, the application stands disposed off in the

following terms:

(A) The Court below shall get TIP conducted of the petitioner by the informant of the present case within three weeks from the date of

communication of the order to the Court below.

(B) If the TIP report discloses that the petitioner has been identified by the informant, the present application seeking bail by the petitioner will be

deemed to have been rejected.

(C) If, on the other hand, the report discloses that the petitioner has not been identified by the informant in the present case, he shall be released on

bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned

ACJM 6th, Muzaffarpur in Mushahari PS Case No. 124 of 2019, subject to the conditions (i) that one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the

petitioner, (ii) that the petitioner and the bailors shall execute bond with regard to good behaviour of the petitioner, and (iii) that the petitioner shall also

give an undertaking to the Court that he shall not indulge in any criminal activity, tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses. Any violation of

the terms and conditions of the bonds or the undertaking shall lead to cancellation of his bail bonds. The petitioner shall cooperate in the case and be

present before the Court on each and every date. Failure to cooperate or being absent on two consecutive dates, without sufficient cause, shall also

lead to cancellation of his bail bonds.