Patna High CourtCR. MISC./40503/2017dismissed

Sunil Kumar Yadav @ Paisath @ Sunil Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2017-09-22Mr. Justice Vinod Kumar Sinha2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.40503 of 2017 (3) dt.22-09-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.40503 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -367 Year- 2016 Thana -BARHARA District- BHOJPUR ======================================================

1. Sunil Kumar Yadav @ Paisath @ Sunil Kumar Yadav son of Late Chhote Yadav, Resident of Village- Rassi Bagan, Police Station Ara Nawada in the district of Bhojpur.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prabhu Narayan Sharma For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Indra Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 22-09-2017 The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Barhara P.S. Case No. 367 of 2016, registered for offences punishable under Sections 302/34 of Indian Penal Code. Petitioner is not named in the F.I.R, petitioner's name surfaced in this case during the course of investigation on his self confession and on his confession one knife, which was used in the offence was recovered from his house.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he has falsely been implicated in this only on the basis of recovery of one knife and apart from that there is no illegal evidence so as to show his involvement in the present case. Further petitioner has no criminal antecedent and has been in judicial for last ten months. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.40503 of 2017 (3) dt.22-09-2017 Having heard both sides, considering the fact and circumstances of the case and nature of allegation, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail, his application for regular bail is, accordingly, rejected.

However, since the petitioner has been in judicial custody for last ten months, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and try to conclude it as soon as possible even by separating the trial of the petitioner from other accused persons. (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) sunil/- U