Jay Prakash Burnwal v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.35266 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -83 Year- 2003 Thana -SONO District- JAMUI ====================================================== Jay Prakash Burnwal Son of Ramchandra Burnwal, R/o Village- Matihana, P.S.- Sono, District- Jamui.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Amrendra Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 25-08-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

This is an application for bail in connection with Sono P.S. Case No. 83 of 2003 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 341, 341, 342, 307, 436, 328, 302, 354, 427, 380, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of Explosive Substance Act and 3/4 of Antiterrorist Act. Petitioner is named in the FIR and case appears to be very heinous. It further appears that the case is of the year 2003 and he surrendered in the 2017.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner and he has no criminal antecedent and other co-accused have been granted bail in Cr.Misc.No. 19883 of 2017, vide order dated 21.6.2017 and Cr.Misc.No. 19927 of 2017, vide order dated

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.35266 of 2017 (4) dt.25-08-2017 2/2 5.7.2017. Further submission is that he is in custody for six months.

Heard learned APP also, who has opposed the prayer for bail.

Having heard both sides and from perusal of record it appears that some of the co-accused have been granted bail and some of the co-accused have been refused bail by this Court and considering the facts and circumstances and as petitioner surrendered after four years, though he is named in FIR, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. However, learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and try to conclude it within six months. If trial is not concluded within the said period, petitioner may renew his prayer for bail before the court below itself, which will be considered by the court below keeping in view the period of custody of the petitioner.

With the above observation, this application is dismissed. (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) spal/- U