Bauwa Roy @ Baua Roy v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25210 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-141 Year-2015 Thana- RANIGANJ District- Araria ====================================================== Bauwa Roy @ Baua Roy, Son of Badari Roy Resident of village - Ram Nagar, Mahesh Telyahi Tola, P.S.- Sri Nagar, District - Madhepura. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Gopal Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Pramod Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 10-08-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.
Let the defect(s) be removed within four weeks of the complete start of the physical Court in normal course. The petitioner is in judicial custody in connection with Raniganj P.S. Case No.141 of 2015 (G.R. No.1949 of 2015) instituted under Section 394 of the IPC. As per the FIR, lodged on 04.07.2015 when the informant and other traders were going on a pick-up van, the accused persons on two motorcycles stopped the van by opening fire and thereafter it is alleged that around Rs.3,00,000/- and a mobile was looted from the informant whereas Rs.11,000/- was looted from one Alam and Rs.50,000/- from Anil Yadav. They later fled away towards Raniganj. The further allegation is that during the loot, one of the accused persons also hit on his neck
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25210 of 2022(2) dt.10-08-2022 2/2 by his revolver causing injury to him.
As stated above the matter is of 2015 and it was only in January, 2021, six years later that the petitioner chose to walk in into the judicial custody.
Considering the aforesaid conduct of the petitioner including the fact that he has seven such criminal cases of similar nature under his belt, this Court for the present is not inclined to grant him privilege of bail, which is accordingly rejected.
Taking into account the fact that the matter is of 2015, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and see to it that the same is concluded at an earliest preferably within a period of one year.
(Rajiv Roy, J) Prakash Narayan /- U T