Reyaz Nadaf v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.21425 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -33 Year- 2001 Thana -BAHERI District- DARBHANGA ====================================================== Reyaz Nadaf Son of Late Bhunu Nadav alias Bhunna Nadaf Resident of Village- Chhotaki Daine, P.S.- Baheri, District Darbhanga. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mohammad Sufyan For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Arun Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 12-05-2017 The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Baheri P.S. Case No. 33 of 2001, registered for offences punishable under section 171(F), 147 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act. This is a case of misuse of privilege of bail about nine years.
It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he was mentally not sound and as such he could not make pairvi in this case. Later on, he was arrested and is in custody since 28.12.2016. It has further been submitted that sessions trial is of the 2003 and till 2017 only two witnesses have been examined and there is no progress with the aforesaid trial, as such, he may be granted bail with terms and conditions imposed on him.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21425 of 2017 (3) dt.12-05-2017 2/2 Having considered the facts and circumstances and in view of long misuse of privilege of bail and he was arrested after compliance of section 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C., I am not inclined grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. Further the trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the petitioner as the sessions trial is of the year 2003 and try to conclude the same within a period of six months. At the same time S.P., Darbhanga is directed to ensure the attendance of witnesses in this case on the date fixed. If not concluded, the petitioner will be at liberty to move before the court concerned itself for grant of bail and the court will consider the conduct of the petitioner during this period and will pass appropriate order without being prejudiced by the order of this court.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed.
(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) Ravi/- U T