Dhananjay Singh @ Dhananjay Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.46 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -429 Year- 2015 Thana -BEGUSARAI TOWN District- BEGUSARAI ====================================================== DHANANJAY SINGH @ DHANANJAY KUMAR Son of Ramashray Singh Resident of Village Pithauli, P.s Teghra District Begusarai. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Lovekush Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. B.Ram, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 03-03-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. representing the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Begusarai Town P.S. Case No. 429 of 2015 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 385, 387/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 (1- b) a and 26 of the Arms Act.

Allegedly, three motor-cycle borne criminals overtook the truck bearing registration No. OD-02-B-07555 loaded with banana and thereafter, the petitioner boarded in the truck and at the point of pistol directed the driver to drive as per his direction, the driver raised alarm but the petitioner brought the truck on the road and got down the driver and demanded amount of Rs. two lakhs from the owner of the truck but in the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.46 of 2016 (4) dt.03-03-2016 2/2 meantime the police came there and the petitioner was apprehended with pistol and sickle.

Submission is of false implication and that the petitioner has been made victim of this circumstances, he is banana grower farmer and there was dues of Rs. Sixty thousand with the agency and on demand, the driver falsely implicated the petitioner in this case, nothing was recovered from his conscious possession and during investigation, the alleged arm was found ineffective and as such the petitioner who is suffering in custody since 23.08.2015, deserves sympathetic consideration to which the learned APP seriously opposes by submitting that earlier also the petitioner was involved in Teghra P.S. Case No. 156 of 2009 registered under Sections 307 I.P.C. and 25 (1- b) 26 of the Arms Act.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and accordingly, his prayer stands rejected.

However, the Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and to conclude the same preferably within six months. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J.) ajaypd./- U T