Sintu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.39689 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -39 Year- 2017 Thana -PURAINI District- MADHEPURA ====================================================== Sintu Kumar S/o Sarwan Mandal, R/o Village-Itahari, P.S. Alamnagar, District-Madhepura.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pawan Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Yogendra Kumar Singh (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA JAISWAL ORAL ORDER 21-08-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and APP for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Puraini P.S. Case no. 39 of 2017 registered under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code.

One motorcycle and one mobile phone of the informant is said to have been looted by three unknown miscreants assaulting on his head by means of brick bat. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case at the instance of his enemy. Nothing incriminating article has been recovered from his conscious physical possession. His name is surfaced only on the basis of confessional statement. The petitioner has been languishing in custody since 12.05.2017. The

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39689 of 2017 (2) dt.21-08-2017 2/2 petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

From the perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the looted mobile phone was recovered from the possession of the petitioner and on the basis of his confessional statement, the looted motorcycle was recovered from the possession of co-accused Munna Singh.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer is rejected.

However, the learned lower court is directed to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible within nine months from the date of production/receipt of a copy of this order. If the trial is not concluded within the stipulated period, the petitioner may renew his prayer of bail.

(Prakash Chandra Jaiswal, J) rohit/- U T