Ranjay Kumar And ORS v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.53553 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -290 Year- 2015 Thana -MANER District- PATNA ======================================================
1. Ranjay Kumar, Son of Vijay Rai, Resident of Village- Singhara, P.S.- Maner, District- Patna.
2. Lorik Kumar, Son of Raman Urgah Rai.
3. Sugriv Kumar, Son of Raman Urgah Rai. Both Resident of VillageBalwant Tola, Sherpur, P.S.- Maner, District- Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sinha, Adv.
For the informant : Mr. Baidyanath Prasad, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Smt. Anita Kumari Singh, Ad. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 03-03-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. representing the State.
The petitioners seek bail in connection with Maner P.S. Case No. 290 of 2015 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 365 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners want to renew their prayer for bail which was earlier rejected vide order dated 30.11.2015 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Nos. 47233/15 and 50433/15 on the ground that the petitioners are suffering in custody since 16.07.2015. There is no legal and cogent material against them. Confessional statement made before the police has got no
evidentiary value in the eye of law. Up till now no prosecution witness has been examined and in near future the trial is not likely to be concluded, the stage of the case has also been changed as now the charges have been framed and, as such, the petitioners deserve sympathetic consideration.
The learned APP duly assisted by the learned counsel for the informant opposes the prayer of bail by submitting that the petitioners are causing threats again and for that informatory petition has been filed in the court of A.C.J.M., Danapur. The trial will be concluded very soon and, as such, the petitioners do not deserve bail.
In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering that charges have been framed on 13.02.2017 and, as such, at this stage I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail and accordingly, their such prayer stands rejected in connection with Maner P.S. Case No. 290 of 2015 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Danapur, Patna. However, considering the detention of the petitioner, let the trial be expedited and concluded within a period of four months.
The learned counsel for the informant is also directed to cooperate during the trial and to ensure the production of
chargesheeted witnesses so that the trial be concluded within a period of four months, failing which, the petitioners if at no fault, will be at liberty to renew their prayer for bail. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) sushma/- U T