Janki Mandal v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.36043 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -24 Year- 2013 Thana -CHANDRAMANDI District- JAMUI ======================================================
1. Janki Mandal Son of Sukhdeo Mandal resident of village - Billi Gaddi, P.S. Chakai, District - Jamui .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Adv. Mr. Lakshmi Kant Sharma For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. M.K.Khare,A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 24-11-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Chandra Mandih P.S.Case No.24 of 2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 307, 353, 427, 121 and 121A of the Indian Penal Code, 27 of Arms Act and 16,17 and 20 of U.A.P.Act, pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Jamui.
Allegedly, 7-8 miscreants entered into the Bank premises of State Bank of India, Nawadih and after opening firing looted away cash of Rs. 16, 32,500/-, damaged computer sets etc. and the miscreants were aged 20 to 35 years and thereafter the petitioner and one other were caught by the police and from their
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.36043 of 2015 (3) dt.24-11-2015 2/2 possession part of looted amount i.e. Rs. 5,22,000/-, cartridges, arms, wireless set and motorcycle were recovered and further they confessed their guilt stating the name of other co-accused. Submission is of false implication and that the petitioner is suffering in custody since 10.3.2013 and the witnesses examined by the prosecution have not identified the petitioner during trial and they are none but the informant and the cashier, the part of looted amount was not recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner and as such the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration to which learned A.P.P. seriously opposes.
In the facts and circumstances, as stated above, considering the alleged recovery, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and accordingly his prayer for bail stands rejected.
However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within a period of eight months taking the same on priority basis.
(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) singh/- U T