Pappu Singh v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.407 of 2016 (4) dt.03-03-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.407 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -150 Year- 2014 Thana -RAJOUN District- BANKA ====================================================== Pappu Singh son of Late Anirudh Singh resident of village - Amahara, P.S. Rajoun, District - Banka.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Brij Nandad Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. A.L.Pandit(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 03-03-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. representing the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Rajoun P.S. Case No. 150 of 2014 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 384, 379 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

Allegedly, the petitioner after assaulting the informant snatched Rs. 12,000/- and opened fire also. The petitioner opened fire on the tire of the vehicle and also snatched amount from the driver of the truck which was behind the vehicle of the informant. Submission is of false implication and that the petitioner has been made victim of the circumstance, nothing has been recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner and he

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.407 of 2016 (4) dt.03-03-2016 is suffering in custody since 12.06.2015, no fire arm injury has been caused to the informant or anyone, no offence under Section 307 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act is made out. The learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer of bail by submitting that the petitioner has got criminal antecedent and earlier he has not disclosed the criminal antecedent but after filing supplementary affidavit he has disclosed the same. In the facts and circumstances stated above considering the allegation attributed against the petitioner serious in nature at this stage, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and accordingly, his such prayer stands rejected. However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within nine months.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) sushma/- U T