Amardeo Yadav @ Amar Deo Kumar Yadav @ Sudama v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.19670 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -172 Year- 2016 Thana -PHULPARAS District- MADHUBANI ======================================================

1. Amardeo Yadav @ Amar Deo Kumar Yadav @ Sudama Son of Ram Bilas Yadav, Resident of Village- Sisbabarhi, P.S.- Phulparas, DistrictMadhubani. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manish Kumar No 13 For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Jagdhar Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 29-06-2017 Heard both sides.

The petitioner seeks bail in Phulparas P.S. case No. 172 of 2016 under Section 394, 411 of the Indian Penal Code. The informant alleged that while he was going to the house of his sister on a Hero Honda motor cycle bearing registration No. BR7C-0389, three persons overtook his motor cycle and snatched his motor cycle at the point of pistol. The informant and others chased the accused persons and one of them namely, Amardeo Yadav @ Amar Deo Kumar Yadav @ Sudama, the petitioner, was apprehended and from his possession looted motor cycle, arms and ammunitions were recovered. The petitioner disclosed the name of his accomplice, Nitish Kumar and

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.19670 of 2017 (3) dt.29-06-2017 2/2 Ram Prakash Yadav. The informant identified the petitioner as the person who looted the motor cycle at the point of pistol. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has wrongly been made accused in the case. The informant has entered into compromise. The petitioner is in jail since 09.06.2016 but it appears that petitioner was apprehended on chase and besides looted motor cycle arms and ammunitions were recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within six months from the date of receipt of this order.

If the trial is not concluded within six months, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) BKS/- U T