Bharat Singh @ Bharat Prasad v. The State Of Bihar Through Economic Offence Unit, Bihar, Patna

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.49998 of 2015 (4) dt.29-02-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.49998 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -7 Year- 2014 Thana -ECONOMIC OFFENCES, BIHAR DistrictPATNA ====================================================== Bharat Singh @ Bharat Prasad Son of Late Nagendra Prasad Yadav, Resident of Village - Maula, P.S. - Maner, District - Patna. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar Through Economic offence Unit, Bihar, Patna .... .... Opposite Party.

====================================================== with Criminal Miscellaneous No.50422 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -7 Year- 2014 Thana -ECONOMIC OFFENCES, BIHAR DistrictPATNA ====================================================== Amit Kumar Yadav @ Awadesh Prasad @ Tenya Prasad @ Tegra @ Pahalwan Jee son of Ram Kumar Singh @ Ram Kumar Prasad, Resident of village- Hiramampur, P.S.- Bihta, District- Patna .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through EOU Unit .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

(In Cr.Misc. No.49998 of 2015) For the Petitioner : Mr. Krishna Chandra, Advocate. For the State (E.O.U) : Mr. Mr.V N P Sinha (For Eou) (In Cr.Misc. No.50422 of 2015) For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate. For the State (E.O.U) : Mr. Akhileshwar Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate. Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, Advocate.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD ORAL ORDER 29-02-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for State.

Two bail petitions are being heard together and disposed of by common order as two bail petitions arise in connection with

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.49998 of 2015 (4) dt.29-02-2016 Economic Offences P.S. Case No. 07. 2014 registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 473 and 120B/34 of Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of Income Tax Act.

Earlier prayer for bail of the petitioners was rejected. However, a fresh petition has been filed for grant of bail of the petitioners on the ground that petitioners are remained in jail custody for about two years.

However, a report has been called for from the court of S.D.J.M., Patna. Report has been received. It has been reported that cause of delay in disposal of the case on the part of the accused persons as they are one by one filing petition for discharge after rejecting their prayer for bail and to file Criminal Revision against the order of rejection.

Hence, I am allowing the trial court to proceed with the trial and to frame charge.

Having regard to the fact, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, their prayer for bail is rejected. m.p.

(Gopal Prasad, J) U T