Patna High CourtCR. MISC./13054/2017dismissed

Md. Raziullah @ Bittu v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2017-03-28Mr. Justice Vinod Kumar Sinha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.13054 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -336 Year- 2016 Thana -MADHUBANI TOWN DistrictMADHUBANI ====================================================== Md. Raziullah @ Bittu Son of Md. Samiullah, Resident of VillageChanaura Ganj, Jhanjharpur, P.S.- Jhanjharpur, District- Madhubani. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. The Branch Manager, UCO Bank, Branch Madhubani, DistrictMadhubani. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Subhash Kumar Jha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Panchanand Pandit ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 28-03-2017 Heard the parties.

This application is for grant of bail in connection with Madhubani Town P.S.Case No.336 of 2016 dated 1.10.2016 correspondign to G.R.No.2019 of 2016 for the offence under Sections 420, 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he has clean antecedent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner and he is in custody since 02.10.2016. Now the charge-sheet has also been submitted against the petitioner.

Heard learned A.P.P. also and the learned counsel for the UCO Bank. The learned counsel for the UCO Bank has submitted

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13054 of 2017 (3) dt.28-03-2017 2/2 that the impugned order itself shows that the petitioner was arrested at the spot after seeing video-footage and as such he is veteran criminal withdrawing money from the ATM. Having heard both sides and in view of the facts and circumstances, as stated above, as well as the fact that he has been arrested on the basis of the video-footage, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage, however, as the petitioner is in custody for about five months, the learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the petitioner and try to conclude it as soon as possible.

With the aforesaid observation, this application is dismissed.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) chn/- U