Rambabu Choudhary v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.48833 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -59 Year- 2015 Thana -AJIMABAD District- BHOJPUR ====================================================== Rambabu Choudhary, son of Late Setha Choudhary, Resident of VillageNurpur, P.S- Azimabad, District - Bhojpur. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amarendra Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ramesh Chandra ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 15-12-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

The petitioner is in custody since 09.10.2015 in connection with Azimabad P.S. Case No. 59 of 2015, registered for offences punishable under Sections 3/4 of Explosive Substance Act, Section 10/13/16/18/19 of U.P.A Act and Section 17 of C.L.A Act.

Allegation is of recovery of explosive materials from the field of the petitioner.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused petitioner's name has surfaced in the present case. Petitioner has no concern with the said offence as the explosive materials recovered, did not belong to him rather the same belonged to one Sonadhari Yadav.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.48833 of 2016 (3) dt.15-12-2016 2/2 The petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he has been in judicial custody since 09.10.2015.

Learned A.P.P. for the State opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that the alleged explosive materials have been seized from the field of the petitioner and he has been directly connected with the said offence.

Having heard both sides and in view of the fact that the said explosive has been recovered from the field of the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner the privilege of bail. However, as the petitioner has already remained in judicial custody for more than one year., learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the matter and conclude the trial as soon as possible.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) sunil/- U T