Vikram Rai @ Bittu Rai @ Vikram Ray @ Bittu Ray v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.36473 of 2016 (2) dt.07-09-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.36473 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -642 Year- 2014 Thana -KHAZANIHAT District- PURNIA ======================================================

1. Vikram Rai @ Bittu Rai @ Vikram Ray @ Bittu Ray son of Shankar Rai, resident of Village- New Colony Rajni Chowk, P.S.- K.Hat (Sahayak) District- Purnea.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bijendra Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Awadhesh Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 07-09-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

The petitioner wants to renew his prayer of bail which was earlier twice rejected vide order dated 17.03.2015 and 24.11.2015 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 52403 of 2014 and 35174 of 2015, on the ground that the petitioner is in custody since 23.08.2014 having no criminal antecedent and trial has not been concluded within six months as per order dated 24.11.2015. In the first information report there is allegation for taking away Rs. 1,75,000/- from the bag kept in almiraha and nothing alleged regarding theft of other articles but on the basis of alleged recovery of other articles the petitioner is suffering in custody and, as such, he deserves sympathetic consideration to which the learned APP opposes by submitting that on the basis of

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.36473 of 2016 (2) dt.07-09-2016 confessional statement of the petitioner, the mobile used was recovered and further stolen articles have been recovered from possession of co-accused.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering the alleged recovery, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, again his prayer for bail stands rejected. However, let the trial be expedited and concluded as early as possible, preferably within four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, failing which the petitioner, if at no fault, may renew his prayer of bail. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U T