Dhuri Koiri v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.26555 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -25 Year- 2004 Thana -MAHARAJGANJ District- SIWAN ======================================================

1. Dhuri Koiri aged about 50 years, Son of Subash Koiri @ Ram Subhag Koiri, @ Ram Sugam, Resident of Dhobwalia, P.S.- Maharajganj, Distt.- Siwan.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mithilesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Anil Prasad Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 11-07-2017 The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Maharajganj P.S. Case No. 25 of 2004, registered for offences punishable under Section 395 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the articles which has been produced in the T.I.P. differs from the articles, which has been seized from the house of the petitioner. Further other co-accused having similar allegation has already been granted bail and petitioner has been in judicial custody since 15.04.2017 Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the articles recovered from the house of the petitioner has been identified by the informant. Having heard both sides, it appears from the perusal of

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26555 of 2017 (4) dt.11-07-2017 2/2 record that the case is of the year 2004 and charge-sheet in this case was submitted in the year 2007 and petitioner has now come in the year 2017, as such, considering the facts and circumstances coupled with the fact petitioner has criminal antecedents, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail, his application for regular bail is, accordingly, rejected.

However, considering the fact that the case is quite old, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and try to conclude it within a period of nine months.

At the same time, S.P. Siwan is directed to ensure the production of witnesses in the trial court on the date fixed so that the trial can be concluded within the period as prescribed above. (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) sunil/- U T