Bhuntun Rai @ Bhantu Rai v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2000 of 2016 (2) dt.18-07-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.2000 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -2 Year- 2014 Thana -SANGRAMPUR DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ====================================================== Bhuntun Rai @ Bhantu Rai Son of Vishwanath Rai Resident of VillageMolnapur, Police Station- Rajepur, District- East Champaran. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Dwivedi, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Vinod Shankar Modi, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 18-07-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner is in custody in connection with Sangrampur P.S.Case No.02 of 2014 pending in the Court of CJM, Ist Class, Motihari for an offence under Section 395 of the IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act. The earlier bail application of the petitioner was rejected vide Cr.Misc.No.27129 of 2014 dated 29.07.2015. Petitioner is in custody since 10.01.2014. Chargesheet has been submitted in the case. There is no allegation of tampering of evidence against the petitioner. Petitioner is not named in the FIR. He has remained in custody fore more than two and half years.

On behalf of the State, it has been submitted that from the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2000 of 2016 (2) dt.18-07-2016 earlier rejection order, it is evident that the looted articles are said to have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner and the same has been identified by the informant and the petitioner has criminal antecedent.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail to the above named petitioner, the same is rejected.

Anyhow, the court below is directed to take all necessary steps to conclude the trial preferably within a period of nine months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. (Sudhir Singh, J) B.Kr./- U T