Raju Rowe @ Raju Roe v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.50841 of 2017 (2) dt.21-11-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.50841 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -74 Year- 2000 Thana -MUFFASIL DistrictWESTCHAMPARAN(BETTIAH) ======================================================

1. RAJU ROWE @ RAJU ROE son of Late Sunil Rowe, resident of Village- Chanpatia Ahir Toli, P.S.- Chanpatia, District- West Champaran. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Shailendra Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 21-11-2017 The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Bettiah Muffasil P.S. Case No. 74 of 2000, registered for offences punishable under Sections 394 of the Indian Penal Code. Allegation against the petitioner and others is of snatching the motorcycle of the informant on the point of pistol. Further the case is of year 2000 and petitioner has been absconding in this case for seventeen years and he was arrested in the year 2017 in connection with other case.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner so far the allegation part is concerned, save and except confession of coaccused, there is nothing against the petitioner and further so far the fact that the case is of year 2000, it has been submitted that petitioner has no knowledge about his implication in that case as

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.50841 of 2017 (2) dt.21-11-2017 he was not named in the F.I.R. Further in this case petitioner has been in custody for last more than four months. Heard learned A.P.P. also.

Having heard both sides, considering the fact that since the petitioner was absconding in this case, his case was separated from others and after separation, steps were taken under Section 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. and on that basis petitioner has been remanded in this case, further it also appears from impugned order that the court below has already given direction for conclusion of trial and petitioner has been given liberty that if the trial is not conclude, he may renew his prayer for bail, as such, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Hence this application is dismissed.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) sunil/- U T