← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./30219/2018dismissed

Md. Naushad @ Md. Nashiya @ Nasia @ Mohammad Naushad Alam v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2018-05-17Mr. Justice Vinod Kumar Sinha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.30219 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -2 Year- 2016 Thana -GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP. DistrictPATNA ======================================================

1. Md. Naushad @ Md. Nashiya @ Nasia @ Mohammad Naushad Alam, Son of Md. Tauheed, Resident of Village- Mirzapur, Bardah, P.S.- Muffasil, District- Munger.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Mr. U.K. Gautam, Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India, 1st Floor, Chandpura Place, Bank Road, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna- 800001.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kamal Kishore Jha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. S.D. Sanjay (Addl. S.G.) Mr. Anshuman Singh (CGC) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 17-05-2018 The prayer for bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected vide order dated 11.04.2017 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 9578/2017 with a direction to the trial court to expedite the trial and try to conclude the same within a period of one year and if not concluded, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no case is made out against the petitioner and uptill now trial has not been concluded even after expiry of one year. Heard the learned Additional Solicitor General who

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.30219 of 2018 (2) dt.17-05-2018 2/2 has submitted that he has got instruction that prosecution evidence has already been closed and now the case is pending for evidence of defence.

Considering the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and try to conclude the same within a period of four months.

With the aforesaid observations, the present petition is dismissed.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J.) Rakhi U T