Madan Rai @ Pramod Rai @ Pramod Ray v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.56173 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-5 Year-2015 Thana- CHANDRAMANDI District- Jamui ====================================================== MADAN RAI @ PRAMOD RAI @ PRAMOD RAY Son of Late Bajo Rai Resident of Barmoriya, P.S. - Sono (Charkapathar), District - Jamui ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Satya Prakash Parasar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ram Priya Sharan Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL ORDER 19-06-2020 The proceedings of the Court are being conducted through Video Conferencing and the Advocates joined the proceedings through Video Conferencing from their residence. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

Petitioner, who is in custody, seeks bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 122, 124(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1) A of the Arms Act and 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 of the U.A.P. Act. Petitioner had earlier moved this Court for regular bail vide Cr. Misc. No. 50943 of 2018 which was rejected on 11.01.2019 with a direction to the trial court to conclude the trial within one year.

Allegation is of recovery of A.K. 56 rifle, 17 live cartridges, battery, Spoon, Red pen and other articles which was

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56173 of 2019(6) dt.19-06-2020 2/2 recovered on confession made by petitioner from forest where it was concealed.

It is submitted on behalf of petitioner that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Nothing was recovered from the possession of petitioner. Petitioner is in custody since 26.01.2015 and was remanded in the case on 19.12.2017.

Report was called for with respect to stage of trial and it is stated in report send by trial court that one witness out of 8 witnesses has been examined.

Considering prohibited arms and ammunition being recovered concealed in the jungle on confession of petitioner and petitioner having criminal antecedent of similar nature, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.

However, trial court is directed to expedite and conclude the trial within one year from the date of receipt/production of copy of order passed by this Court. (S. Kumar, J) veena/rajivU T