← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./45294/2021bail rejected

Dipak Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2022-04-06Mr. Justice Purnendu Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.45294 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-486 Year-2018 Thana- KANTI District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== DIPAK KUMAR Son of Paltan Singh Resident of Village - Panapur Kariat, P.S. - Kanti, District - Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Yugal Kishore, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Anita Kumari, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER 06-04-2022 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

Let the defect(s) be removed within two weeks of the complete start of the physical Court in normal course. Petitioner, who is in custody since 22.11.2018, seeks regular bail in connection with Session Trial No. 276 of 2019 arising out of Kanti P.S. Case No. 486 of 2018 dated 12.08.2018 registered for offences punishable under Sections 364, 364A, 384, 386 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Allegation is of making demand of ransom and kidnapping of the son of the informant, who is still traceless. In paragraph no. 78 of the case diary, one co-accused Vishal Kumar has made his statement that the son of the informant has already been killed by the accused persons. Petitioner is named

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45294 of 2021(3) dt.06-04-2022 2/2 in the FIR.

Materials which have been collected in course of investigation supports the allegation made against the petitioner. Taking into consideration serious and heinous nature of offence, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Taking into consideration the period of custody undergone by the petitioner, who is in custody since 22.11.2018, the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously within a period of nine months.

If no substantial progress takes place in conduct of trial, the petitioner, if so advised, may renew his prayer for bail after the aforesaid period.

(Purnendu Singh, J) Niraj/- U T