Chandan Rai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.45693 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -21 Year- 2014 Thana -BELA District- SITAMARHI ====================================================== Chandan Rai S/o Laxmi Rai Resident of Village- Narga, P.S.- Bela, District- Sitamarhi.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nityanand Tiwary, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 21-12-2016 Heard both sides.

The petitioner seeks bail in Bela P.S. Case No. 21/2014, registered for the offences punishable under Section 364(A) and other sections of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prayer for bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected vide order dated 02.07.2015 passed in Cr. Misc. 19927/2015 with a direction to the trial court to conclude the trial within one year from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The liberty was given to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail, if the trial was not concluded within one year.

It is submitted that the trial has not yet been concluded, but in view of the allegation that it was the petitioner who

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45693 of 2016 (2) dt.21-12-2016 2/2 kidnapped the victim and demanded ransom of Rs. One Crore. The victim was recovered from the house of Zulekha Khatoon and disclosed the name of the petitioner, as kingpin of the alleged offence. It is submitted that victim made statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and disclosed the name of four persons. There is variance in the statement of the victim.

Considering the facts aforesaid and nature of allegation made against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above-named on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected. Since the petitioner is in jail for about two years as submitted, the trial court is directed to hold the trial on day-to-day basis and conclude the same within six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

The Superintendent of Police, Sitamarhi is directed to ensure presence of the prosecution witnesses in the trial court on each and every date, so that the trial must be concluded within six months.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned trial court as well as the Superintendent of Police, Sitamarhi for information and needful.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) Vinita/- U T