Ramdeo Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.12116 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -73 Year- 2015 Thana -HALSI District- LAKHISARAI ======================================================

1. Ramdeo Yadav S/O Lae Mahadeo Yadav, R/o Village- Pratappur, P.s.- Halsi, District- Lakhisarai .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jainendra Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. R.S. Chaudhary (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 29-06-2016 Heard the Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Arbind Kumar, Counsel for the informant.

The petitioner had earlier filed an application for grant of bail which was sought to be withdrawn vide order dated 21.12.2015 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 52180 of 2015 (Annexure-1). Again the present application for bail has been filed. Petitioner is facing accusations vide Halsi P.S. Case No. 73 of 2015 registered under Section 302 and other allied sections of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. On going through the F.I.R., it appears, active role has been assigned to the petitioner by the informant in the commission of the murder of his younger brother. There was also a demand of payment of rangdari.

Mr. Kumar points out that the petitioner is also accused of

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12116 of 2016 (4) dt.29-06-2016 2/2 few more criminal cases of serious nature. When the same was pointed out to the Court then he sought permission to withdraw the application which was allowed vide order dated 21.12.2015 (Annexure-1). It is also stated that now the case is pending trial before the learned Trial Court vide S.T. No. 85 of 2016 before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lakhisarai. The petitioner is in custody since 10.06.2015. He is stated to be an old person.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer for bail is rejected. Petitioner is, however, granted liberty to renew his prayer for bail in the Court below itself if the trial does not record adequate progress within eight months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Be it noted that Counsel for the petitioner has taken a stand that petitioner will render full cooperation in expeditious disposal of the trial. (Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) Pankaj/- U T