Amar Lal Deo @ Rama Lal Deo v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.43294 of 2013 ====================================================== Amar Lal Deo @ Rama Lal Deo, S/O Sukhdeo Lal Deo, resident of Village Shivram, P.S. Baheri, District Darbhanga.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate. For the Opposite Party : Mr. Amrendra Pd.(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 16-07-2015 The petitioner is languishing in custody since 28.03.2011 in connection with S.T. No. 470 of 2011, arising out of Baheri P.S. Case No. 35 of 2014 for the offences instituted under Sections 212, 216, 120(B) of the I.P.C., 17 of the C.L. Act and 3⁄4 of the Explosive Substance Act.

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

The prosecution story, in brief, is that on information that MCC members are staying in the house of Uchit Mahto, the informant and others went there then on seeing the informant some people started fleeing away. But on chase, Uchit Mahto was apprehended and after search the house of Uchit Mahto, the police found one bag of plastic containing hundred hollow detonator, nine detonators with fuse wire in a carbon and about two meter

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43294 of 2013 (6) dt.16-07-2015 2/2 gelatin wire. Uchit Mahto disclosed the name of Baiju @ Gobindji, Santosh Sah and this petitioner.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 28.03.2011. It is further submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case due to mistake of fact.

On behalf of the State it has been submitted that the petitioner is involved in Maoist activities and a huge quantity of detonators and other elements have been recovered in the present case.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. The same is rejected in connection with S.T. No. 470 of 2011, arising out of Baheri P.S. Case No. 35 of 2004, pending in the court of the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Darbhanga.

Anyhow, the Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same within a period of nine months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order, failing which the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

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