Rahul Kumar Jha v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.61982 of 2017 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-106 Year-2015 Thana- HATHUA District- Gopalganj ====================================================== Rahul Kumar Jha, Son of Harishchandra Jha, Resident of Village- Kushoul, P.S.- Madhepur, District- Madhubani Bihar. at present Surya Vihar Part III, GAli No.10, P.S.- Chauki District- Faridabad, Haryana... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. AMIT KUMAR JHA For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. SRI LAKSHMI KANT SHARMA ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 20-12-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner wants to renew his prayer of bail, which was earlier rejected vide order dated 09.02.2017 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 54592 of 2016, on the ground that the petitioner is in custody since 10.09.2016, he has been falsely implicated and mobile number of the petitioner has not been used in withdrawing the money, the petitioner was running a cyber cafe at Buddha Marg, Mandawali, Delhi and there is no tangible and legal material against him and as such the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration.

Learned APP duly assisted by learned counsel for the informant opposes the prayer of bail by submitting that the petitioner has confessed his guilt and further from his mobile the money was transacted online and perusal of SMS detail and

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.61982 of 2017(2) dt.20-12-2017 2/2 SMS of IRTC reveal that the petitioner has booked and online transaction was taken from the account of the informant. Five prosecution witnesses have already been examined and the trial is likely to be concluded.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, finding no good ground for reconsideration of the prayer of bail of the petitioner, again his such prayer stands rejected. However, learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as early as possible, preferably within six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, failing which, the petitioner, if at no fault, may be at liberty to renew his prayer of bail.

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