Wakil Mandal v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.16298 of 2015 Arising out of PS.Case No. -212 Year- 2001 Thana -BANMANKHI District- PURNIA ====================================================== Wakil Mandal, son of Asharfi Mandal, resident of Village- Laxmipur, Bhitta, P.s B. Kothi, District- Purnia.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sada Nand Ray, Advocate. For the Opposite Party : Mr. Dinesh Singh (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 11-06-2015 The petitioner is languishing in custody since 15.12.2014 in connection with Supplementary Banmankhi P.S. Case No. 212 of 2001 for the offences instituted under Section 366(A)/34 of the I.P.C.

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

The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 13.09.2001 at about 10.00 A.M. while the informant and his son, namely, Pintu Thakur, were resting in his garage after taking meal, in the meantime, 5-6 unknown miscreants having deadly weapons came and kidnapped his son Pintu Thakur for ransom of Rs. 5,00,000/-. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case due to the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16298 of 2015 (2) dt.11-06-2015 2 / 2 village politics. Further he submits that there is no eye witness to the occurrence.

On behalf of the State, it has been submitted that the victim has been examined under Section 164 Cr. P.C. statement and in the said statement made by the victim he has named the petitioner.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. The same is rejected in Supplementary Banmankhi P.S. Case No. 212 of 2001, pending in the court of the learned C.J.M., Purnea. Anyhow, the trial court shall take all steps to expedite the trial and preferably conclude the same within a period of one year. If the trial is not concluded within the said period, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

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