Patna High CourtCR. MISC./13225/2017rejected

Sarvesh Shukla v. The State Of Bihar

2017-05-03Mr. Justice Jitendra Mohan Sharma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.13225 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -9 Year- 2010 Thana -BHAGWANPUR DistrictVAISHALI(HAJIPUR) ====================================================== Sarvesh Shukla, Son of Ram Padarath Shukla, Resident of Village- Titidha, P.S.- Rajapakar, District- Vaishali.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pankaj Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajendra Singh Shastriji ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 03-05-2017 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned A.P.P for the State.

The petitioner wants to renew his prayer for bail which was earlier rejected by order dated 11.04.2016 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 56248 of 2015, on the ground that the petitioner is suffering in custody since 20.11.2013, he has not been put on the test identification parade, co-accused Sunil Kumar Singh @ Sunil Kumar has already been released on bail and as such the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration as there is no progress in the trial.

The learned A.P.P. submits that from possession of the petitioner looted amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- was recovered.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13225 of 2017 (4) dt.03-05-2017 2/2 In the facts and circumstances as stated above, finding no good ground for reconsideration of prayer for bail, again prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected in connection with S. Tr. No. 565 of 2013 arising out of Bhagwanpur P.S. Case No. 09 of 2010 pending in the court of the Additional District Judge- V, Vaishali at Hajipur.

However, considering detention of the petitioner, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and to conclude the same as early as possible preferably within a period of six months, failing which the petitioner, if at no fault, may be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) Abhay/- U T