Patna High CourtCR. MISC./29986/2019dismissed

Jai Kishun Tiwary v. The State Of Bihar

2020-03-02Mr. Justice Vinod Kumar Sinha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29986 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-824 Year-2018 Thana- MOTIHARI TOWN District- East Champaran ====================================================== JAI KISHUN TIWARY Son of Ramtapasya Nand Tiwari @ Tapasya Tiwari Resident of Village- Areraj, P.S.- Gobindganj, District- East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Umesh Chandra Verma For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ram Naresh Ray ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 02-03-2020 The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Motihari Town P.S. Case No. 824 of 2018, registered for offences punishable under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471, 472 and 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Prosecution case is of defalcation of huge amount in land acquisition case and one person, namely, Sukhdeo Sah claiming himself to be main claimant has received more than three crore and Rs. 1.30 crore has also been transferred in the account of the petitioner.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that main allegation is against other accused persons and petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case and has been in judicial custody for more than a year and the amount in question has

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29986 of 2019(8) dt.02-03-2020 2/2 already been refunded.

Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that during investigation, the name of petitioner has also come and in his account also Rs. 1.30 Crore was transferred. Apart from that it has also come that petitioner has opened the bank account in the name of Sukhdeo Sah and others.

Having heard both sides, in view of the allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, however, since, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that charge has been framed, learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within a period of seven months.

This application is accordingly dismissed.

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