Suraj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.9498 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -57 Year- 2015 Thana -PIRI BAZAR District- LAKHISARAI ======================================================

1. Suraj Kumar Son of Late Santu Yadav, Resident of Village- Singhya English Tola, P.S. Safiyabad, District Munger. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajive Ranjan Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Gajendra Pd.Yadav(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 26-04-2016 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned A.P.P for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in a case for the offences punishable under sections 394, 411 and 120 B of the I.P.C The petitioner is named in the First Information Report along with others that they after assaulting the informant with butt of the pistol snatched mobile, cash of Rs. 2,500/- , other papers, motorcycle and helmet. During investigation on the basis of the confessional statement of the petitioner the looted motorcycle was recovered from the house of Mithilesh Yadav. Submission is of false implication and that nothing has been recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner, in the First Information Report the informant has named the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9498 of 2016 (3) dt.26-04-2016 2/2 petitioner allegedly after making enquiry, the petitioner is in custody since 14.10.2015 but he has not been put on the test identification parade, co-accused Inwa Yadav has already been allowed bail and as such the petitioner also deserves sympathetic consideration, to which the learned A.P.P. opposes by submitting that the prayer for bail of Mithilesh Yadav has already been rejected.

In the facts and circumstances as stated above, considering recovery of the looted motorcycle on the basis of confessional statement of the petitioner, at present I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and accordingly his such prayer stands rejected in connection with Piri Bazar P.S. Case No. 57 of 2015/ G.R. No. 1648 of 2015 pending in the court of A.C.J.M. Lakhisarai.

However, considering detention of the petitioner, let the trial be expedited and concluded within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, failing which the petitioner, if at no fault, may renew his prayer for bail. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) Abhay/- U T