Patna High CourtCR. MISC./40797/2016rejected

Surendra Choudhary @ Surendra Kumar @ Madhu v. The State Of Bihar

2016-09-21Mr. Justice Jitendra Mohan Sharma2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.40797 of 2016 (2) dt.21-09-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.40797 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -216 Year- 2014 Thana -KANKARBAGH District- PATNA ======================================================

1. Surendra Choudhary @ Surendra Kumar @ Madhu S/o Late Panalal R/o Diwan Mohalla, Hamampar, P.S. Khajekala, Distt.-Patna at Present R/mShanti Bhawan, Devendra Lane, West Ashok Nagar, Road No.(E), P.S. Kankarbagh, Distt.-Patna .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Shantanu Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 21-09-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

The petitioner wants to renew his prayer of bail, which was earlier rejected vide order dated 01.12.2015 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 36544 of 2015, on the ground that the petitioner is suffering in custody since 19.06.2014, after lodging of this case other complaint case has also been filed against the petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act in which cognizance has been taken when the petitioner was in custody. During investigation no cogent material has come, there is general and omnibus allegation, the wife of the petitioner has been allowed bail vide Cr. Misc. No. 35881 of 2014 and as such the petitioner also deserves sympathetic consideration to which the learned APP seriously opposes.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.40797 of 2016 (2) dt.21-09-2016 In the facts and circumstances stated above, finding no good ground for reconsideration of prayer for bail of the petitioner, again his prayer for bail stands rejected. However, considering the period of detention, let the trial be expedited and concluded as early as possible, preferably within six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, failing which, the petitioner, if at no fault, may by at liberty to renew his prayer of bail.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U T