Patna High CourtCR. MISC./56514/2018rejected

Birendra Prasad Singh v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2018-09-19Mr. Justice Hemant Kumar Srivastava2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.56514 of 2018 (2) dt.19-09-2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.56514 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -1887 Year- 2013 Thana -PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPATNA ====================================================== Birendra Prasad Singh, Son of Late Jai Nandan Singh, Resident of 3-C, Sneh Plaza, Sardar Patel Path, North, S.K. Puri, District- Patna. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Amit Kumar Nag, Son of Nalini Kanta Nag, Flat No.203, Rameshwaram Apartment, D.V.C. Road Yarpur, P.S.- Gardanibagh, District- Patna. .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vibhuti Ranjan Sonvadra, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Bilash Roy Raman, APP. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 19.09.2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. Earlier petitioner filed Cr. Misc. No. 33147 of 2015 for grant of bail and this court granted provisional bail to him for the period of nine months with condition that he shall ensure the payment of amount in question to the complainant within the above stated period of nine months or shall make available flat of the same rate to the complainant but admittedly, neither petitioner returned the money nor provided flat to the complainant.

Furthermore, it appears from the impugned

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.56514 of 2018 (2) dt.19-09-2018 order dated 01.06.2018 that petitioner did not surrender before the court even after expiry of nine months and after cancellation his bail bonds, he was arrested and produced before the court and thereafter, he was remanded in this case.

The above stated fact goes to show that the petitioner does not have any respect to the order of this court and, therefore, considering the conduct of the petitioner, I am not inclined to release him on bail and accordingly, his prayer for bail in connection with Complaint Case No. 1887 ( C ) of 2013 stands rejected. However, the learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the petitioner and conclude the same as early as possible.

Shahid/Abhijeet (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J) U T