Ajit Kumar Sah @ Ajit Kumar Sha @ Ajit Sah v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10575 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-261 Year-2019 Thana- MADHUBANI TOWN DistrictMadhubani ====================================================== AJIT KUMAR SAH @ AJIT KUMAR SHA @ AJIT SAH Son of Mahesh Sah Resident of Village - Fuhari, P.S. - Rahika, District- Madhubani. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ravindra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Akhileshwar Dayal, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 09-11-2020 This matter has been taken up through Video Conferencing.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

The petitioner is languishing in custody for the offences punishable under Sections 420/379/341/323/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 66D of the I.T. Act in connection with Madhubani Town P.S. Case No. 261 of 2019 corresponding to C.R.I. No.1337 of 2019.

Allegation is that the petitioner duped the informant and changed the ATM card and withdrew money from the account of the informant. Material is there that the money withdrawn was used for purchase of mobilephone and SIM card which was seized subsequently from the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10575 of 2020(6) dt.09-11-2020 2/2 has got a long list of criminal antecedent. The petitioner is in custody since 27.08.2019.

Submission is that investigation of the case is already complete and in other criminal cases petitioner is already on bail. Considering the nature of allegation and criminal antecedent of the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, the prayer for bail is refused. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within nine months, failing which the petitioner would be at liberty to renew the prayer for bail before the Court-below itself. (Birendra Kumar, J) Mkr./- U T