Vikram Rai @ Bittu Rai @ Vikram Ray @ Bittu Ray v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.35174 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -642 Year- 2014 Thana -KHAZANIHAT District- PURNIA ======================================================

1. Mukesh Kumar S/o khushi Lal Sah Resident of Mohalla- Bari Hat, P.s K. Hat, Sahayak, District Purnia.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with Criminal Miscellaneous No.53048 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -642 Year- 2014 Thana -KHAZANIHAT District- PURNIA ====================================================== Vikram Rai @ Bittu Rai @ Vikram Ray @ Bittu Ray son of Shankar Rai, resident of village New colony Rajni Chowk, P.S. K. Hat (Sahayak) District- Purnea.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

(In Cr.Misc. No.35174 of 2015) For the Petitioner/s : Sri Suraj Narayan Pd. Sinha, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Ansural Haque(App) (In Cr.Misc. No.53048 of 2015) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bijendra Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. R.B.Roy Raman(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 24-11-2015 Both the Criminal Miscellaneous are of the same occurrence and as such have been heard together and are being disposed of by passing this common order.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned A.P.P.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.35174 of 2015 (3) dt.24-11-2015 2/2 The petitioners seek bail in a case for the offences punishable under sections 394 and 302 of the I.P.C The petitioners want to renew their prayer for bail which was earlier rejected by order dated 17.03.2015 vide Cr. Misc. no. 52043 of 2014 on the ground that up till now only one witness has been examined and the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future and further in the fardbeyan only it is mentioned that the miscreants took away Rs. 1,75,000/- and there is no mentioned regarding other articles and as such the alleged recovery of other articles has got no evidentiary value in the eye of law, to which the learned A.P.P. opposes.

In the facts and circumstances as stated above, finding no good ground for reconsideration of prayer for bail, again prayer for bail of the petitioners is hereby rejected in connection with S.T. No. 51 of 2015 arising out of K.Hat (Sahayak) P.S. Case No. 642 of 2014 pending in the court of 1st A.D.J. Purnea. However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and to conclude the same preferably within six months after taking the same on priority basis.

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