Vijendra Yadav @ Vijindra Yadav @ Shailendra Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.1253 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -166 Year- 2007 Thana -ISLAMPUR District- NALANDA (BIHARSHARIFF) ====================================================== VIJENDRA YADAV @ Vijindra Yadav @ SHAILENDRA YADAV Son of Kuleshwar Yadav, Resident of Village- Pachlova, Police StationIslampur, District- Nalanda. .... .... Appellant

Versus

The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Vibhuti Ranjan Sonvadra, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, Spl P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 17-07-2017 The appellant seeks bail in connection with Islampur P.S. Case No. 166/2007 registered for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The allegation against the appellant is that he took Rs. 1,04,400/- from 180 ladies including the informant for making available the Government money to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- each from Welfare Department to all Harijan Mahila for marriage of their daughter but when the informant did not get the benefit under the Scheme, she demanded her money from the appellant whereafter the appellant abused her by taking her caste name and refused to give money.

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1253 of 2017 (5) dt.17-07-2017 2/2 It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that he has been falsely implicated in this case and he has no connection with the informant and he is an outsider. Heard Special PP also. He stated that allegation as per FIR is serious and witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution.

Having heard both side, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the appellant. However, considering the fact that appellant is in custody since 11.12.2016, learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Hilsa (Nalanda) is directed to conclude the trial within a period of 6 months. In case the trial is not concluded within a period of six months, the appellant would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

With the above observation, this appeal is dismissed. (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J.) veena/- U T