Patna High CourtCR. MISC./14857/2019dismissed

Sidhayant Kumar @ Lalu v. The State Of Bihar

2019-07-23Mr. Justice Sudhir Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14857 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-110 Year-2018 Thana- MAHUA District- Vaishali ====================================================== SIDHAYANT KUMAR @ LALU Son of Anand Kumar Singh @ Tuna Singh Resident of Village - Karehon, P.S.- Mahua, District - Vaishali ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Anuj Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ramesh Chandra ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 23-07-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in a case instituted for the offences under Sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code. Prosecution allegation , in short, is that the accused persons committed bank dacoity and approx Rs. 10,61,000/- lacs looted from the bank.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 14.6.2018. Chargesheet/prosecution report has been submitted in this case. There is no allegation of tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. The petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. The petitioner has not been put on T.I.P.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14857 of 2019(3) dt.23-07-2019 2/2 On behalf of the State, it is submitted that the case relates to bank dacoity. Approximately 10 lacs rupees have been looted from the bank and from the possession of the petitioner Rs. 17,100/- along with one country made pistol, one live cartridge have been recovered.

Considering the aforesaid, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner in connection with Mahua P.S. Case No. 110 of 2018. The same is rejected. The Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial at the earliest preferably within a period of nine months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

(Sudhir Singh, J) Pankaj/- U T