Patna High CourtCR. MISC./43110/2015rejected

Safdar @ Md. Safdar Alam v. The State Of Bihar

2015-09-16Mr. Justice Ashwani Kumar Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.43110 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -213 Year- 2013 Thana -AJAMNAGAR District- KATIHAR ======================================================

1. Safdar @ Md. Safdar Alam, son of Kd. Shamsul Joha, resident of villageMilik Tola, Police Station- Baisi, District- Purnea. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Sah For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nagendra Prasad (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 16-09-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Azamnagar P.S.Case No. 213 of 2013 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 392 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

The prayer for bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected by this Court on 18th July, 2014 on merits. Though the FIR was instituted under sections 392 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, it is submitted that the charge sheet has been filed under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. The case has already been committed to the court of Sessions and charges have also been framed.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43110 of 2015 (2) dt.16-09-2015 2/2 Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has remained in custody for about two years and there is no likelihood of conclusion of the trial in near future. Be that as it may, regard being had to the fact that immediately after the robbery was committed on the point of pistol the petitioner was apprehended by the police on chase, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is rejected.

In case the trial is not concluded within one year from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail before the trial court itself. In such eventuality, while passing the order the trial court would be obliged to disclose the reason as to why the trial could not be concluded within the stipulated period. (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J) Pradeep/- U T