Patna High CourtCR. MISC./8045/2017dismissed

Munna Kumar Singh And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

2017-02-23Mr. Justice Vinod Kumar Sinha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.8045 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -561 Year- 2016 Thana -MOTIHARI TOWN DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ======================================================

1. Munna Kumar Singh Son of Lagandeo Singh,

2. Arjun Das Son of Bhola Das, Resident of Village- Gadhiya, P.S.- Mufasil, District- East Champaran.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anil Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 23-02-2017 The petitioners are in custody since 21.09.2016 in connection with Motihari Town P.S. Case No. 561 of 2016, registered for offences punishable under Sections 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they have not been named in the F.I.R and the allegation against the petitioners that on a confessional statement, a stolen motorcycle and a snatched golden chain has been recovered but apart from that there is nothing against these petitioners and they have remained in judicial custody for about five months. As regards the criminal antecedents, it has been submitted that the petitioners have been remanded in all other cases after arrest in the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8045 of 2017 (2) dt.23-02-2017 2/2 present case.

Heard learned A.P.P. also.

Having heard both sides, in view of the fact that there is recovery of one motorcycle from the possession of the petitioners, which has been used in the offence and the petitioners have criminal antecedents, as such, at this stage, I am not inclined to grant the petitioners, the privilege of regular bail, it is accordingly rejected.

However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and try to conclude it within a period of six months and if the trial is not concluded within the aforesaid period, the petitioners will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail in the court below itself, which will be considered by the court below on the merit of the case, without being prejudiced by the order of this Court. (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) sunil/- U