Ramesh Dhangar And ORS v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.23979 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -57 Year- 2016 Thana -KOTWA DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ======================================================
1. Ramesh Dhangar, Son of Late Yogi Dhangar,
2. Umesh Dhangar, Son of Late Yogi Dhangar,
3. Sanjay Dhangar, Son of Raghuni Dhangar, All are Resident of VillageDeepau Dhangar Toli, Police Station- Kotwa, District- East Champaran. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Lalan Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 05-07-2017 Heard the parties.
This application is for grant of regular bail in connection with Kotwa P.S.Case No.57 of 2016, for the offences under Sections 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 47(A), 53(C ) and 54 of Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016. Allegation against the petitioners is about recovery of country-made liquor as well as the allegation is of manufacturing liquor. Further alleviation is that the seized liquor is very highly dangerous of 68 UP power.
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they have been falsely implicated in this case and they are in custody for more than 4 1⁄2 months.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.23979 of 2017 (3) dt.05-07-2017 2/2 Heard learned A.P.P. also.
Having heard both sides and in view of the facts and circumstances, as stated above, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners, however, considering the fact that the petitioners are in custody, the learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and try to conclude it within a period of six months. At the same time, the S.P., East Champaran at Motihari is directed to ensure presence of the witnesses in this case so that the trial may be concluded within a period of six months, and if not concluded, the petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail before the court concerned, which will be considered on the basis of materials available on the record and he will pass appropriate order.
With the aforesaid observation, this application is dismissed.
(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) chn/- U