Abhinandan Kumar @ Rinku v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.14377 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -592 Year- 2016 Thana -DEHRI TOWN District- SASARAM (ROHTAS) ====================================================== Abhinandan Kumar @ Rinku S/o Kamala Singh, R/o Village- Choudhary Chowk, P.S.- Dalmiyanagar, District- Rohtas.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank, Rohtas.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sada Nand Roy For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Amitesh Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 25-04-2018 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 22.06.2017 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 18093 of 2017, on the ground that the petitioner is suffering in custody since 08.12.2016, the petitioner is a poor part time sweeper and his confessional statement has got no evidentiary value in the eye of law, there was direction to conclude the trial within six months but the trial has not been concluded and from the report of the learned S.D.J.M, it reveals that up till now no prosecution witness has been examined. The learned A.P.P. and the learned counsel for the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.14377 of 2018 (4) dt.25-04-2018 2/2 Bank oppose prayer for bail of the petitioner by submitting that in the video footage the petitioner has been identified and further he has confessed his guilt also by submitting that he will deposit the amount of Rs. 85,000/-.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, at present I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and accordingly his prayer for bail stands rejected in connection with Dehri (T) P.S. Case No. 592 of 2016 pending in the court of S.D.J.M, Dehri.

However, considering detention of the petitioner the learned trial court is again directed to expedite the trial and to conclude the same as early as possible preferably within four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, failing which the petitioner, if at no fault, may be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

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