Ravi Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.23565 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -300 Year- 2016 Thana -CHANDAUTI District- GAYA ====================================================== Ravi Kumar, son of Nagendra Prasad Sinha @ Narendra Kumar Sinha, resident of village Bambam Baba Mandir, Pahad Talli, P.S. Delha, District Gaya .... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Jha with Mr. Satya Veer, Advocates For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ramchandra Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 18-05-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
This is an application for bail in connection with Chandauti P.S.Case No. 300 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 394 of the Indian Penal Code and 25( 1 b) a, 26, 27 & 35 of the Arms Act.
Allegation as per FIR against the petitioner is of snatching Rs.1,50,000/- from the informant on the point of pistol but on hulla people assembled and one person has disclosed the name of the petitioner.
It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that falsity of prosecution case will appear from the fact that none of the seizure list witnesses has been named in the FIR and three persons have been made accused in this case and, as a matter of fact, petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case at the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.23565 of 2017 (2) dt.18-05-2017 2/2 instance of police and he has remained in custody for six months having no criminal antecedent.
Heard learned APP also, who has opposed the prayer for bail.
Having heard both sides and in view of allegation and considering the fact that petitioner was arrested at the spot, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. However, learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and try to conclude the same as early as possible, preferably within a period of one year. If trial is not concluded within the said period, petitioner may renew his prayer for bail before the court concerned.
This application is dismissed with the above observations.
(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) spal/- U