Md. Appu @ Md. / Subhan v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.34785 of 2017 (2) dt.03-08-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.34785 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -1 Year- 2007 Thana -MUNGER MUFFASIL District- MUNGER ======================================================

1. Md. Appu @ Md. / Subhan resident of village - Bishanpur Post - Makwa, P.S. - Makwa, Dist - Munger.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Deep Nishi For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Jitendra Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 03-08-2017 The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No. 01 of 2017, registered for offences punishable under Sections 25(1-A)/ 25(1-AA)/ 25(1-B) AC/26 (i)(ii) (iii)/35 of the Arms Act.

Prosecution story is that police on information that accused persons were making illegal arms raided the spot and petitioner fled away from the spot.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there is nothing available on record so as to show the complicity of the petitioner in the alleged offence. Further no recovery has been made from the possession of the petitioner and he has been in judicial custody since 18.03.2017.

Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.34785 of 2017 (2) dt.03-08-2017 on the ground that the case is of the year 2007 and the petitioner has been apprehended in this case in the year 2017. Having heard both sides, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation and also that the case is of the year 2007 as he was declared absconder. Further it appears that in this case charge has already been framed, as such I am not inclined to release the petitioner of regular bail, his application for regular bail is, accordingly, rejected. However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and try to conclude it within a period of six months even by conducting it on day to day basis.

At the same time, S.P. Munger is directed to ensure the production of witnesses in the Trial Court on the date fixed, so that the trial can be concluded within the aforesaid period. (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) sunil/- U T