Patna High CourtCR. MISC./52963/2016rejected

Tunnu @ Uttam Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

2017-01-11Mr. Justice Ashwani Kumar Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.52963 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -664 Year- 2015 Thana -KATIHAR District- KATIHAR ====================================================== Tunnu @ Uttam Paswan Son of Shiv Kumar Paswan, resident of VillageLalkothi Road, Driver Tolla, Police Staiton- Katihar, District- Katihar. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 11-01-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Katihar Town P. S. Case No. 664 of 2015 registered under Sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code. The prayer for bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected by this Court vide order dated 20.05.2016. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is neither named in the FIR nor he has been put on Test Identification Parade in course of investigation by the Investigating Officer of the case. He has been booked in this case only on the basis of CCTV footage. It

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.52963 of 2016 (2) dt.11-01-2017 2/2 is further contended that the petitioner having no criminal antecedent, is in custody since 20th February, 2016 and till date, the case has not been committed to the court of sessions. Be that as it may, regard being had to the fact that the prayer for bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected by this Court on merits only seven months ago, I am not inclined to take a different view of the matter. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is rejected.

In case, the trial of the petitioner is not concluded within seven months from the date of framing of charge, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail before the court below itself.

(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.) Kanchan/- U T