Sandip Kumar Jha v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.17093 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -9 Year- 2017 Thana -MANIHARI District- MUZAFFARPUR ======================================================
1. Sandip Kumar Jha Son of Ajay Jha @ Ajay Kumar Jha, Resident of Village- Balra Kishun, P.S.- Maniyari, District- Muzaffarpur. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pawan Kumar Chaurasiya ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 11-04-2017 The petitioner is in custody since 13.01.2017 in connection with Maniyari P.S. Case No. 09 of 2017, registered for offences punishable under Section 399, 402, 414, 120B Indian Penal Code, Sections 25(1-b)a/26(11)/35 Arms Act and Section 20/22 NDPS Act.
Allegation against the petitioner is of recovery of one country made pistol, four cartridges and 30 pieces each containing 2 mg of Ativan Tablets.
It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he has falsely been implicated in this case and petitioner has no criminal antecedent and has been in judicial custody since 13.01.2017 Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17093 of 2017 (2) dt.11-04-2017 2/2 Having heard both sides, considering the fact that petitioner police on information that some persons assembled at a place to commit crime, make a raid and apprehended petitioner from whose possession country made pistol, cartridges and ativan tablets were recovered, as such, at present, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner the privilege of regular bail, it is accordingly rejected.
However, since the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 13.01.2017, learned Trial Court is directed expedite the trial and try to conclude it within a period of four months and if the trial is not concluded within the aforesaid period, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail in the court below itself.
With the above observation, this application is dismissed. (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) sunil/- U T