Binod Kumar Sinha @ Binod Kumar v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.21792 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -155 Year- 2017 Thana -PATNA CITY CHOWK District- PATNA ====================================================== Binod Kumar Sinha @ Binod Kumar, son of Late Kishori Mohan Prasad, resident of Chhippitola, near at Jalan School, Begampur, P.S. Chowk, Patna City, District Patna .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Ravindra Charan Yadav, son of Late Munilal Yadav, resident of Flat No. 301, Jagarnath Lila Complex, Kedwaipuri, P.S. Budha Colony, District Patna, working as an active member of Bhartiye Janta Party, Birchand Patel Path, P.S. Kotwali, District Patna

3. Pramila Kumari, wife of Sri Ravindra Charan Yadav, resident of Flat No. 301, Jagarnath Lila Complex, Kedwaipuri, P.S. Budha Colony, District Patna

4. Mahesh Kumar Singh, son of Sri Rajdeo Narayan Singh, resident of near at Bharat Lal Tent House, P.S. Jakkanpur, District Patna .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Brajendra Nath Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 12-04-2018 Earlier prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected by this Court vide order dated 10.10.2017 passed in Cr.Misc.No.44900 of 2017 with direction to learned court below to verify about the authenticity of the signature of Pramila Kumari on the tripartite agreement arrived at between the parties by handwriting expert within a period of three months and if signature of Pramila Kumari is found to be genuine, the court below would consider the prayer for bail of the petitioner and dispose of the same on merit.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21792 of 2018 (2) dt.12-04-2018 2/2 the tripartite agreement has not been produced in court, as such the authenticity of signature of Pramila Kumari could not be verified by handwriting expert.

Heard learned APP also.

From the impugned order it appears that the original copy of tripartite agreement has not been produced by the petitioner, as such signature of Pramila Kumari could not be verified by the handwriting expert although direction was issued by learned trial court to the parties.

In such view of the matter, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

However, since the petitioner is in custody, learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the petitioner. With the above observation, this application is dismissed. (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) spal/- U