Patna High CourtCR. MISC./39965/2017dismissed

Reyajuddin @ Reyajuddin Mian v. The State Of Bihar

2017-08-22Mr. Justice Vinod Kumar Sinha2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39965 of 2017 (2) dt.22-08-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.39965 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -6 Year- 2017 Thana -BARHARIA District- SIWAN ======================================================

1. Reyajuddin @ Reyajuddin Mian son of Late Aziz Mian, resident of Village- Chap (Paschim Tola), Police Station- Sarai O.P., District- Siwan. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bijay Prakash Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Shyam Bihari Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 22-08-2017 The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Barharia P.S. Case No. 06/17, registered for offences punishable under Sections 399, 402 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code. Allegation against the petitioner is of recovery of one country made pistol along with three cartridges. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he has falsely been implicated in this case. Moreover, he has sufficiently been punished for the said offence as he has remained in judicial custody for more than seven months and though he has criminal antecedent but he is on bail in all those cases. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that petitioner is an accused in nine other cases and most of them are of similar nature.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39965 of 2017 (2) dt.22-08-2017 Having heard both sides, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation and also that petitioner has criminal antecedents, as such, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail, his application for regular bail is accordingly rejected.

However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and try to conclude it within a period of six months and if the trial is not concluded within the aforesaid period, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail in the court below itself. (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) sunil/- U T