Patna High CourtCR. MISC./792/2017rejected

Ram Dular Kharwar @ Ramdular @ Nawal Ji v. The State Of Bihar

2017-01-18Mr. Justice Jitendra Mohan Sharma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.792 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -51 Year- 2015 Thana -NAVHATTA District- SASARAM (ROHTAS) ======================================================

1. Ram Dular Kharwar @ Ramdular @ Nawal Ji son of late Bishwshwar Kharwar resident of village Salma, P.S. Nauhatta, District Rohtas at Sasaram.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Tribhuwan Narayan For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Parmanand Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 18-01-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Nauhatta P.S. Case No. 51/2015, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 386, 307 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1-b)A, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act and 3⁄4 of the Explosive Substance Act and 13, 16, 17, 20 B.B. Act. The petitioner wants to renew his prayer of bail which was earlier rejected by order dated 18.05.2016 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 14347/2016 on the ground that the petitioner is suffering in custody since 23.09.2015 and not a single witness has been examined uptill now and in near future the trial is not likely to be concluded. Learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer of bail by submitting

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.792 of 2017 (2) dt.18-01-2017 2/2 that the petitioner was apprehended and from his possession arms and explosive substances were recovered. Further, he has got criminal antecedent also.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, finding no ground for re-consideration of prayer of bail , again the prayer of bail of the petitioner stands rejected.

However, again the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order on priority basis, failing which the petitioner, if at no fault, may renew his prayer for bail.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J.) Rakhi U T