Chhotu Kumar @ Chotu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.23914 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -49 Year- 2017 Thana -RAMPUR District- GAYA ====================================================== Chhotu Kumar @ Chotu Kumar, son of Late Shiv Bachan Yadav, Resident of Village + P.S.- Rampur, District- Gaya.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md. Javed Jafar Khan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Bharat Lal ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR ORAL ORDER 14-06-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner, already in custody, seeks bail in Rampur P.S. Case No.49 of 2017 registered under Section 387 of the Indian Penal Code and 25 (1-B) A, 26, 35 of the Arms Act. Allegation in brief is that the petitioner and his elder brother came to the mobile shop of the informant and demanded extortion amount of Rs.5,000/-. When the informant denied, thereafter, Natu Kuamr took out a country made pistol and placed at the informant's head then he raised alarm and snatched away pistol and both accused persons were caught with assistance of local public and handed over to the police.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that there is no allegation against the petitioner that he

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.23914 of 2017 (2) dt.14-06-2017 2/2 carried any fire arm rather the same is against his elder brother Natu Kumar and he has been in custody in this case since 23.2.2017 and charge has also been framed in this case. Considering the nature of the offence, at present this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail, in connection with Rampur P.S. Case No.49 of 2017 pending in the court of C.J.M., Gaya, is rejected at this stage and the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within one year, if the trial is not concluded within that period, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail. (Arun Kumar, J) N.H./- U T