Patna High CourtCR. MISC./38511/2020rejected

Aditya Kumar @ Sanoj @ Manoj v. The State Of Bihar

2021-04-05Mr. Justice Birendra Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38511 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-678 Year-2019 Thana- CHAPRA TOWN District- Saran ====================================================== ADITYA KUMAR @ SANOJ @ MANOJ, Son of Babulal Ram, Resident of Village - Katgharwa, P.S. - Shikarpur, District - West Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Shashank Chandra, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Uday Pratap Singh, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 05-04-2021 Heard the parties.

The petitioner is languishing in custody for the offence punishable under Sections 394, 307 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Two persons were apprehended at the spot by the people there-at and the police which reached on getting information that those persons had committed robbery of cash by causing fire arm injury to the person carrying cash. The petitioner was one of the arrested person. From possession of the petitioner, one fire arm and four live cartridges were recovered.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 12.11.2019. Investigation of the case is already complete. Petitioner was not put on T.I. parade

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38511 of 2020(3) dt.05-04-2021 2/2 before the injured or before another person who was going along with the injured, to Bank.

The case diary would reveal that other witnesses have supported that the petitioner and others were apprehended at the spot along with the looted cash of the staff of the informant. Considering the nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge him on bail in connection with Town (Chapra) P.S. Case No. 678 of 2019. Hence, prayer is refused.

Learned trial Judge is directed to expedite the trial. If the trial would not conclude within nine months for no fault on the part of the petitioner, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew prayer for bail.

(Birendra Kumar, J) mantreshwar/- U T