Rahul Kumar Rawat v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.17724 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -148 Year- 2016 Thana -SIKANDARA District- JAMUI ======================================================

1. Rahul Kumar Rawat Son of Ashok Rawat resident of Village - Ghorparan, P.S. - Laxmipur, District - Jamui. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Umesh Prasad For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Ajay Kumar Jha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 18-04-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

The petitioner is in custody in connection with Sikandra P.S.Case no. 148 of 2016 registered under Sections 458, 382,307, 411, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 25(1-B)a, 35 of Arms Act, pending in the court of learned A.C.J.M.-II,Jamui. The allegation against the petitioner is that, as per FIR, apart from other allegation there is recovery of one country made pistol and one cartridge from the possession of the petitioner. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. It has further been submitted that except suspicion there is nothing against the petitioner. It is also submitted that co accused has also been granted bail by the learned court below itself and he is in

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17724 of 2017 (2) dt.18-04-2017 2/2 custody for about seven months.

Heard learned A.P.P. also, who has opposed the prayer for bail stating that apart from allegation, as per FIR, he is an accused in two more cases under Section 392 IPC. Having considering the submissions of both the sides and also considering the fact that the petitioner has criminal antecedent, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.

However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and try to conclude the same within a period of six months and if the trial is not concluded within a period of six months, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) singh/- U T