Patna High CourtCR. MISC./42326/2017dismissed

Neeraj Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2017-09-12Mr. Justice Vinod Kumar Sinha2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.42326 of 2017 (2) dt.12-09-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.42326 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -16 Year- 2015 Thana -RAGHOPUR District- SUPAUL ======================================================

1. Neeraj Yadav Son of Upendra Yadav, R/o Village- Parsarma, P.S.- Raghopur, District- Supaul.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramesh Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Jitendra Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 12-09-2017 The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Raghopur P.S. Case No. 16 of 2015, registered for offences punishable under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

Allegation against the petitioner and other co-accused person is of firing on the informant causing injury to him. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner's name has surfaced in this case only on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused and except that there is nothing against him. It has further been submitted that he has falsely been implicated in this case at the instance of police as the petitioner has criminal antecedent. Further petitioner has been in judicial custody in this case since 05.10.2016.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.42326 of 2017 (2) dt.12-09-2017 Heard learned A.P.P. also.

Having heard both sides, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also that petitioner has been named by the co-accused and also he has criminal antecedent as he is an accused in eleven other cases, as such, at this stage 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 commitment of case and after commitment, try to conclude the trial 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