Jitendra Pandit v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31427 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-41 Year-2021 Thana- JOKIHAT District- Araria ====================================================== 1.

JITENDRA PANDIT Son of Jibachh Lal Pandit @ Jeewach Lal Pandit Resident of Village - Laliya ward no. 10, P.S.- Jokihat, District - Araria. 2.

Bijal Pandit Son of Late Daya Lal Pandit Resident of Village - Laliya ward no. 10, P.S.- Jokihat, District - Araria.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 49888 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-41 Year-2021 Thana- JOKIHAT District- Araria ====================================================== MD. KONEN @ MD. KONAIN Son of Dabir Resident of Village- Budhi Kashibari, P.S.- Palasi, District- Ararai.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 64434 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-41 Year-2021 Thana- JOKIHAT District- Araria ====================================================== 1.

MD. SADDAM S/o Azmal @ Md. Azmal R/o village- Budhi Kashbari, P.S.- Palasi, District- Araria 2.

Manoj Kumar Choupal S/o Deo Nath Choupal R/o village- Gayaspur, P.S.- Palasi, District- Araria ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 31427 of 2021) For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Mukesh Kumar Rana, Advocate For the informant :

Mr. Ramesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Brajendra Nath Pandey, A.P.P.

(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 49888 of 2021)

2/4 For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Mukesh Kumar Rana, Advocate For the informant :

Mr. Ramesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Mukeshwar Dayal, A.P.P.

(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 64434 of 2021) For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Madhav Jha, Advocate For the informant :

Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Umesh Lal Verma, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 11-04-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

Petitioners seek regular bail in connection with Jokihat P.S. Case No. 41 of 2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 364(A) and 365 of the Indian Penal Code 1860.

As per the prosecution case the nephew of the informant aged about 6 years was kidnapped for ransom from his school.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been implicated in this case on the basis of confessional statement of the co-accused and except the confessional statement there is no material against the petitioners to connect them with the present offence. The petitioners are in custody since 7.2.2021 and charge sheet has already been submitted.

3/4 On the other hand, Mr. Ramesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant submits that on the basis of confessional statement, ransom money has been recovered from some of the petitioners. However, the trial has already commenced and out of eight charge sheet witnesses, three have been examined and for examination of remaining five witnesses, the next dated fixed in the trial is on 27th of April,2022.

This Court vide order dated 09.03.2022 had called for a report from the trial court regarding stage of trial and in pursuance thereof, the report of learned I/C. District & Sessions Judge, dated 16.03.2022, is on record and from perusal of the same, it appears that the trial court has given the estimated time for conclusion of the trial within three months.

Regards being had to the submission made by the parties and taking into consideration the nature of allegation and the fact that the trial of the present case is at advance stage, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioners.

Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioners

4/4 stands rejected.

However, the petitioners may renew their prayer for bail after three months if the trial does not show any substantial progress.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) S.Ali/- U T