Patna High CourtCR. MISC./17011/2020rejected

Pintu Kumar Chaupal @ Pintu Chaupal v. The State Of Bihar

2020-09-01Mr. Justice Birendra Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17011 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-184 Year-2019 Thana- BHARGAMA District- Araria ====================================================== Pintu Kumar Chaupal @ Pintu Chaupal S/o Ramdev Chaupal @ Ramdeo Chaupal Resident of Village- Bengwahi Ward No.1, P.S.- Raniganj, DisttAraria ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Anil Prasad Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Nawal Kishore Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 01-09-2020 This matter has been taken up through Video Conferencing.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

The petitioner is languishing in custody for the offences punishable under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1-b)a/26 of the Arms Act in connection with Bhargama P.S. Case No. 184 of 2019.

According to FIR, the petitioner and two others were robbing the informant while he was on the way. When the villagers reached, two of them escaped. However, the petitioner could not flee away and he was apprehended and from his possession a country-made pistol and cartridges were recovered. The

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17011 of 2020(3) dt.01-09-2020 2/2 petitioner has got two criminal antecedents one is murder case and another is a case of robbery.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody since last one year. The criminal antecedent cases were registered against unknown. Investigation of the case is already complete. The petitioner is ready to cooperate with the trial.

Considering the material aforesaid as well as criminal antecedent of the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, the prayer for bail is refused. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.

(Birendra Kumar, J) Mkr./- U T