Patna High CourtCR. MISC./20921/2017rejected

Shiv Kumar @ Bhola v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2017-06-15Mr. Justice Prakash Chandra Jaiswal2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.20921 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -33 Year- 2017 Thana -HAJIPUR District- VAISHALI(HAJIPUR) ====================================================== Shiv Kumar @ Bhola Son of Kusheshwar Patel, Resident of Village- Dighi Kala East, P.S.- Sadar Hajipur, District- Vaishali. .... .... Petitioner.

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. The Union of India. .... .... Opposite Parties. ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Vasant Vikas, Adv. For the State : Mr. Shyameshwar Dayal, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA JAISWAL ORAL ORDER 15-06-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

Petitioner seeks regular bail in Hajipur Town P.S. Case No.33 of 2017 registered for the alleged offences under Section 414/34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 25 (1-b) A, 26 of the Arms Act and Section 8 (b) (ii) (B) of the N.D.P.S. Act. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner along with others was apprehended with a stolen Scorpio, one country made pistol, one live cartridge and one knife were recovered from the possession of the petitioner.

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. Nothing incriminating articles had been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.20921 of 2017 (03) dt.15-06-2017 - 2 - On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State referring paragraph-22 of the case diary has submitted that the petitioner is a veteran criminal and he has stolen 15 vehicles along with other accused persons. Petitioner has also criminal antecedent.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. However, the learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude it as soon as possible, preferably within a period of six months. If the trial is not concluded within the stipulated period, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

(Prakash Chandra Jaiswal, J.) Trivedi/- U T