Patna High CourtCR. MISC./52240/2015rejected

Mantun Das v. The State Of Bihar

2016-01-30Mr. Justice Ashwani Kumar Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.52240 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -89 Year- 2014 Thana -SAMASTIPUR GRP CASE DistrictSAMASTIPUR ====================================================== Mantun Das son of Bhola Das, resident of village- Mauhali, Police StationRosara, District- Samastipur. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rana Sanjay Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dinesh Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 30-01-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Samastipur Hassanpur (Rail P.P.) P.S.Case No.89 of 2014 registered under Section 379 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") It has been contended that though the case was registered under section 379/34 of the IPC, on completion of investigation the police submitted charge-sheet under Section 392/411 of the IPC. It has been further contended that neither the petitioner is named in the FIR nor any incriminating article has been recovered from his possession nor he has been put on test

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.52240 of 2015 (3) dt.30-01-2016 2/2 identification parade till date though he is in custody since 04.08.2015.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has contended that during course of investigation name of the petitioner transpired and after his arrest on the basis of disclosure made by him name of his other associates transpired and from the house of co-accused Chhotu Ram the looted motorcycle was recovered.

Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner for the present. Accordingly, his prayer for bail is rejected. The court below is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as early as possible, preferably within nine months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order failing which the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

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