Md. Zamil @ Zammo @ Zamo v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.17240 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -85 Year- 2014 Thana -MUNGER MUFFASIL District- MUNGER ====================================================== Md. Zamil @ Zammo @ Zamo, son of Late Md. Sayeed, resident of village-Mirjapur Bardah, P.S.-Muffasil, District-Munger. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kamal Kishore Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Abhay Kumar No. 1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 2 20-04-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

This is the 4th attempt by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Sessions Case No. 118 of 2015 arising out of Muffasil P.S. Case No. 85 of 2014 registered under Sections 25(1-B)(a), 25(1-AA), 26(i)(2) and 35 of the Arms Act. According to the prosecution case, a larger number of semi-finished magazines and other equipments for manufacturing arms were recovered from beneath the stair of the house of the petitioner.

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the house in question was in joint occupation of several other family members and it cannot be said that the incriminating articles recovered from the house exclusively

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17240 of 2016 (2) dt.20-04-2016 2 / 2 belonged to the petitioner. It is further contended that though the petitioner is in custody since 08.05.2014, only four, out of the ten charge-sheet witnesses, could be examined so far by the prosecution during trial and the last witness was examined in the case on 06.11.2015. Since then, there is no progress in the trial and the trial is not likely to conclude in near future. Be that as it may, regard being had to the huge recovery of incriminating articles, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner for the present. Accordingly, the application for bail is rejected.

The learned 5th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Munger is directed to hold the trial of the petitioner on day-to-day basis and conclude the same within six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order failing which the petitioner would be entitled to renew his prayer for bail in the court below itself. In such an eventuality, the trial court must assign reason while disposing of the bail application as to why the trial could not be concluded within the stipulated period.

(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.) Sanjeet/- U T