Binay Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.981 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -82 Year- 2015 Thana -CHARPOKHARI District- BHOJPUR ========================================

1. Binay Yadav Son of Late Ram Layak Yadav resident of village - Karnaut Chandi, Police Station Charpokhari in the district of Bhojpur .... .... Appellant/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent/s ======================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sri Sadanand Paswan ======================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 05-12-2016 Heard the parties.

The appellant is aggrieved by an order, dated 04.04.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-1st, -cum- Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ara, whereby he has rejected the appellant's application for grant of regular bail. The present appeal has been preferred under Section 14 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The appellant is an accused of Charpokhari P.S. Case No. 82 of 2015, registered for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3(i)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled tribes Act. It transpires from the records that the appellant had earlier approached this Court for grant of regular bail by filing an application registered as Criminal Miscellaneous No. 48229 of 2015, which was dismissed by an order, dated

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.981 of 2016 (2) dt.05-12-2016 2/2 01.12.2015. All, what has been argued on behalf of the appellant in the present appeal have been taken into account by this Court by the said order, dated 01.12.2015 Submission on behalf of the appellant is that the appellant has remained in judicial custody since 25.03.2015, his case for regular bail deserves to be considered. He has also referred to certain orders passed by this Court, whereby other co-accused persons have been granted regular bail. Considering the fact that the appellant's application was earlier rejected by this Court, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-1st-cum-Special Court, SC/ST Act, whereby the appellant's prayer for regular bail has been rejected.

However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the Court below must expedite the Trial and if the Trial is not concluded within a period of six months from the communication of the present order, the appellant shall be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail before the Court below.

With the observation as above, this appeal is dismissed.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) sunil/-c U T