Madan Sah@Madan Sao v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.40988 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -190 Year- 2015 Thana -SONO District- JAMUI ======================================================
1. MADAN SAH @ MADAN SAO Son of Dukhan Sah Resident of Bishanpur , PS Charkapthar (Sono), District - Jamui..... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== with Criminal Miscellaneous No.42033 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -190 Year- 2015 Thana -SONO District- JAMUI ======================================================
1. Rabindra Sah Son of Arjun Sah Resident of Bishanpur, P.S.- Charkapathar, District- Jamui .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
(In Cr.Misc. No.40988 of 2016) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satya Prakash Parasar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Dashrath Mehta (In Cr.Misc. No.42033 of 2016) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satya Prakash Parasar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Dashrath Mehta ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 05-10-2016 Above noted applications have arisen out of one occurrence and as such they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
The petitioners want to renew their prayer for bail, which was earlier rejected vide order dated 23.06.2016 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 7580 of 2016 and Cr. Misc. No. 12855 of 2016, on the ground that without any FSL report chargesheet has been submitted and after intervention of this Court FSL report has been received which cannot be relied upon, the petitioners are suffering
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.40988 of 2016 (2) dt.05-10-2016 2/2 in custody since 17.12.2015 to which learned APP seriously opposes by submitting that two and three detonators besides other articles were recovered from possession of the petitioners respectively and now FSL report is available. The petitioners were given liberty to renew their prayer for bail after 9 months if the trial is not concluded within the said period. In the facts and circumstances stated above, finding no good ground for reconsideration of prayer for bail of the petitioners, again their prayer for bail stands rejected. However, considering the detention of the petitioners, the learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within the time as given vide order dated 23.06.2016. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) siddharth/avinU T