Satyam @ Jitendra Chaudhary @ Ranjeet Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40014 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-505 Year-2012 Thana- NAWADA District- Nawada ====================================================== Satyam @ Jitendra Chaudhary @ Ranjeet Kumar, Son of Nagina Chaudhary Resident of Village - Koshi, P.S.- Roh, District - Nawada. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Madhuri Lata, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 10-10-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.

Let the defect(s) be removed within four weeks of the complete start of the physical Court in normal course. The petitioner is in judicial custody in connection with Nawada (Town) P.S. Case No.505 of 2012 instituted under Section 366(A)/34 of the IPC.

The prosecution story, in brief, is that informant and her husband used to working at her shop and her daughter Saloni Kumari aged about 15-16 years living lonely at her home. His neighbour Guddu Chaudhary and his brother Satyam were having bad intention upon her daughter. On 22.09.2012, upon coming to his house, he did not found his daughter. Informant had suspicion that her daughter was kidnapped by Guddu Chaudhary and Satyam with the help of Dr. Abhimanyu

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40014 of 2022(2) dt.10-10-2022 2/2 Prasad Verma. Accordingly, the FIR was lodged. The victim girl was subsequently recovered and under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. she supported the allegation made in the FIR regarding her kidnapping in which the name of the petitioner was also incorporated.

The FIR was lodged on 03.10.2012, the petitioner was a named accused, still he chose to walk into judicial custody on 06.05.2022, after almost ten year, thus completely hampering the course of the Trial.

Taking into account the aforesaid fact, this Court for the present is not inclined to grant any relief and the bail application is accordingly rejected.

The Trial court is directed to expedite the Trial (in view of the fact that the matter is of 2012) and conclude the same preferably within a period of nine months. (Rajiv Roy, J) Prakash Narayan /- U T