Patna High CourtCR. MISC./16525/2017dismissed

Rajesh Sah v. The State Of Bihar

2017-04-12Mr. Justice Vinod Kumar Sinha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.16525 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -11 Year- 2017 Thana -NANHPUR District- SITAMARHI ======================================================

1. Rajesh Sah Son of Soman Sah, resident of Ward No. 01, Post Saura, P.S. Nanpur, District - Sitamarhi .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Krishna Murari For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 12-04-2017 The petitioner is in custody since 13.01.2017 in connection with Nanpur P.S. Case No. 11 of 2017, registered for offences punishable under Sections 363, 364A Indian Penal Code. As per F.I.R, allegation against the petitioner that his mobile phone has been used in kidnapping of two children. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that save and except the allegation that petitioner's mobile has been used in the said occurrence, there is nothing to connect him in the present case. Further the children have been recovered from the house of co-accused, Shivhandra Sah and Jitan Sah. Petitioner has been in judicial custody since 13.01.2017.

Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail. Having heard both sides, considering the fact that on the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16525 of 2017 (3) dt.12-04-2017 2/2 confessional statement of petitioner, kidnapped child has been recovered from the house of other co-accused persons of this case and further the mobile which has been used in the alleged offence belong to petitioner, which shows the involvement of petitioner in the said offence, as such, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner the privilege of bail, at this stage. His prayer for regular bail is, accordingly, rejected.

However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and try to conclude it within a period of nine months and if the trial is not concluded within the aforesaid period, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail in the court below itself.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) sunil/- U T