Patna High CourtCR. MISC./15040/2017rejected

Mithilesh Kumar Paswan @ Mithilesh Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

2017-05-03Mr. Justice Jitendra Mohan Sharma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.15040 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -256 Year- 2015 Thana -PUPRI District- SITAMARHI ====================================================== Mithilesh Kumar Paswan @ Mithilesh Paswan, son of Chalitar Paswan @ Chalitar Kumar Paswan, resident of Village- Madhupr (Madhpur Mabbi), P.S. Darbhanga Sadar, District- Darbhanga.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate Mr. Vijay Anand, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party : Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 03-05-2017 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned A.P.P for the State.

The petitioner wants to renew his prayer for bail which was earlier rejected by order dated 30.03.2016 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 5258 of 2016, on the ground that the petitioner is suffering in custody since 17.10.2015, he has not been put on the test identification parade, the recovered mobile has also not been put on the test identification parade, co-accused Jitendra Kumar Ram @ Jitendra Ram has been allowed bail and as such the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration. The learned A.P.P. seriously opposes prayer for bail of the petitioner by submitting that from possession of the petitioner one looted mobile was recovered which is mentioned in

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.15040 of 2017 (2) dt.03-05-2017 2/2 paragraph-52 of the case diary.

In the facts and circumstances as stated above, finding no good ground for reconsideration of prayer for bail, again prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected in connection with Pupri P.S. Case No. 256 of 2015 pending in the court of S.D.J.M. Pupri, Sitamarhi.

However, considering detention of the petitioner, let the trial be expedited and concluded as early as possible preferably within a period of nine months.

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