Gautam Kumar Jha v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.9153 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -80 Year- 2016 Thana -ARER District- MADHUBANI ====================================================== Gautam Kumar Jha, S/o Ojendra Kumar Jha, Resident of Village- Depura , P.S Benipatti, District- Madhubani.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arvind Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nityanand, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 18-03-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

This is an application for bail in connection with Arer P.S.Case No. 80 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner has been made accused in two other cases but inadvertently it is stated in the petition that petitioner has been made accused in one more case. It has also been submitted that in paragraph-5 of the petition other case has been disclosed. However, on the merits of the case it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is not named in the FIR and has been made accused in this case and it has been alleged that stolen motorcycle has been recovered from the house of the petitioner.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9153 of 2017 (3) dt.18-03-2017 2/2 However, it is the purchased motorcycle and he is in custody since 7.10.2016.

Heard learned APP also.

Having heard both sides and in view of the fact that petitioner has criminal antecedent along with the fact that stolen motorcycle has been recovered from the house of the petitioner, as such, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. However, as the petitioner is in custody for more than five six months, learned court below is directed to expedite the trial of the petitioner and try to conclude the same within a period of six months. If the trial is not concluded within the said period, petitioner may renew his prayer for bail.

This application is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) spal/- U