Chandra Mohan Ray v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.49554 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -1 Year- 2013 Thana -RAJPUR DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ====================================================== Chandra Mohan Ray, Son of Chandradeo Prasad, Resident of village - Paigambarpur, P.S.- Siwaipatti, District - Muzaffarpur .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Kr. Ranjit Ranjan, Addl.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 03-03-2015 Heard.

The petitioner seeks bail in a criminal prosecution originally registered under Sections 392, 394, 397/34 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 27 of the Arms Act, in which subsequently offences under Section 411 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code was added.

After having heard the parties, this Court finds that the learned counsel for the petitioner has not stated the correct facts particularly in paragraph no.1 of the bail petition. He has tried to mislead this Court by concealing the material facts regarding commission of crime in question. This Court further finds that the petitioner is accused in as many as three more cases, which have been detailed in paragraph no.3 of the bail petition. In above view of the matter, the prayer for bail made on behalf of the petitioner in connection with Trial No.1498 of 2014, arising out of Rajepur P.S. Case No.1 of 2013 pending in the court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sikrahana, East

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.49554 of 2014 (2) dt.03-03-2015 Champaran at Motihari is rejected for the present. The learned trial court is directed to take up the trial of the petitioner on priority basis and all endeavour should be made to conclude the same at an early date preferably within a period of one year from the date of framing of charge. If the trial of the petitioner is not concluded within the aforesaid period of time, he shall be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail. (Birendra Prasad Verma, J) Arvind/- U T