Md. Mansur Alam @ Manssoor Alam @ Ranjeet Das @ Ranjeet Dasab @ Papu @ Pappu @ Sukhu @ Shukhi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.8113 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -49 Year- 2016 Thana -DHANARUA District- PATNA ====================================================== Md. Mansur Alam @ Manssoor Alam @ Ranjeet Das @ Ranjeet Dasab @ Papu @ Pappu @ Sukhu @ Shukhi Son of Usman Das, Resident of Kabutari Gali, Bal Kishunganj, P.S.-Alamganj, District-Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shyamal Prakash For the Opposite Party/s : Dr. Indiwar Kumari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 03-03-2017 Heard the parties.

This application is for grant of bail in connection with S. Tr. No.610 of 2016 arising out of Dhanarua P.S.Case No.49 of 2016 for the offence under Sections 302, 201 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is victim of the circumstances, and as a matter of fact there was illicit relationship between the wife of the deceased and her 'Nandosi' and the petitioner has been made scapegoat in this case. So far recovery is concerned, it has been submitted that it has been planned and there is no recovery at the instance of the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody for about one year. Heard learned A.P.P. also, who has opposed the prayer for

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8113 of 2017 (3) dt.03-03-2017 2/2 bail of the petitioner, stating that the impugned order shows that in Para No.51 of the case diary it has been mentioned that on the basis of confessional statement of this petitioner, a knife, which was used in the murder, has been recovered, as such the petitioner is not entitled for bail.

Having heard both sides. In view of the fact that there is recovery of a knife at the instance of the petitioner, which was used in the murder, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage, however, as the petitioner is in custody for about one year, the learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and try to conclude it within a period of nine months and if not concluded, the petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail before the learned court below itself, who will consider all aspects of the matter and will pass appropriate order without being prejudiced by the order of this Court..

With the aforesaid observation, this application is dismissed.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) chn/- U