Jitendra Kumar Singh @ Jitendra Singh v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.15651 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -545 Year- 2013 Thana -SARAN COMPLAINT CASE DistrictSARAN ====================================================== Jitendra Kumar Singh @ Jitendra Singh Son of Late Chandrika Singh R/o Village- Satjora, P.S.- Panapur, District - Saran .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Most. Chandrawati Kuar, wife of Late Sukdeo Tiwary R/o VillageGopalpur, P.S Basantpur, District - Siwan at present R/o Satjora, P.S. Panapur, District- Saran.

.... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Tiwary, Advocate For the Opposite Party: Smt. Anuradha Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 08-06-2015 The petitioner is languishing in custody since 15.02.2015 in connection with Complaint Case No.545 of 2013 for the offences instituted under Sections 420 and 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant filed a complaint stating therein that on the pretext of her treatment, accused persons including the petitioner brought her at Chapra where her thumb impression was taken and they got the sale deed executed in their favour by the complainant. In this way, they cheated the complainant.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.15651 of 2015 (2) dt.08-06-2015 2/2 It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case due to enmity.

It has been submitted on behalf of the State that the petitioner is accused as many as in 14 cases and most of the cases are for the offences under Section 420 and other sections of the Indian Penal Code.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. The same is rejected. It is further directed that the learned trial court should take all necessary steps for concluding the trial of the present case within a period of one year.

(Sudhir Singh, J) B.T/- U T