Patna High CourtCR. MISC./2990/2017rejected

Shashi Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

2017-02-15Mr. Justice Jitendra Mohan Sharma2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2990 of 2017 (3) dt.15-02-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.2990 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -233 Year- 2015 Thana -SOHSARAI District- NALANDA (BIHARSHARIFF) ====================================================== Shashi Paswan Son of Raju Paswan Resident of Village- Brijpur, Police Station- Noor Sarai , District- Nalanda.... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vijay Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Shailendra Kumar -2 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 15-02-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

The petitioner wants to renew his prayer of bail, which was earlier rejected vide order dated 17.05.2016 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 14345 of 2016, on the ground that the petitioner is suffering in custody since 28.12.2015, during test identification parade only Munindra Kumar Ranjan identified the petitioner but Lalti Devi has not identified him and on the basis of single identification the petitioner is suffering in custody, there is no reliable material against him and nothing has been recovered from his conscious possession.

Learned APP opposes the prayer of bail by submitting that on the date of occurrence the mobile location of the petitioner was at Sohsarai and he has criminal antecedent also and further he

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2990 of 2017 (3) dt.15-02-2017 was identified during test identification parade by one of the witnesses.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, finding no good ground for reconsideration of prayer for bail of the petitioner, again his prayer for bail stands rejected. However, considering the period of detention let the trial be expedited and concluded as early as possible, preferably within six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

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