Bikki Rajpal v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.3227 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -647 Year- 2016 Thana -BHAGALPUR KOTWALI DistrictBHAGALPUR ======================================================

1. Bikki Rajpal, son of Maheshwar Rajpal, resident of Muhalla- Urdu Bazar, P.S.- Tatarpur, District- Bhagalpur.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Diwakar Upadhyaya, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anish Chandra, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 15-05-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

The petitioner is in custody in connection with Kotwali (Adampur) P.S. Case No.647 of 2016, a case under Sections 399/402 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur.

The petitioner and others were apprehended on suspicion that they were preparing to commit dacoity. From possession of the petitioner a country-made pistol, cartridges and mobile phone were recovered. Petitioner is in custody since 25.11.2016. The petitioner has disclosed four criminal cases pending against him. Some of which are of serious nature. The case-diary would reveal that two more criminal cases were there against the petitioner.

By filing supplementary affidavit the petitioner has

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.3227 of 2018 (6) dt.15-05-2018 P2/ pointed out that in those cases i.e., Kotwali Tatarpur P.S. Case No.637 of 2004, the petitioner was already acquitted on 04.01.2013 by the Juvenile Justice Board, Bhagalpur. Hence, the same was no longer a criminal antecedent of the petitioner and about Kotwali (Tarapur) P.S. Case No.145 of 2014, the petitioner has no knowledge because he was never remanded in that case. It has been informed that the trial of the petitioner is going on. Considering the entire facts of this case especially the criminal antecedents of the petitioner in serious criminal cases and nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail for the present. Hence, the prayer for bail is refused.

The learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within nine months without allowing any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties in the case, failing which the petitioner would be at liberty to renew the prayer for bail before the trial judge itself, who shall pass a reasoned order.

The Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur, is directed to ensure production of the witnesses in the aforesaid case. (Birendra Kumar, J) Mkr./- U T