Manjesh Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.23607 of 2017 (5) dt.21-09-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.23607 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -5 Year- 2016 Thana -MURLIGANJ District- MADHEPURA ======================================================

1. Manjesh Yadav, son of Dinesh Yadav, resident of Village- Godhiyari, P.S. & District- Madhepura.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dinesh Prasad Verma For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Smt Sangeeta Sharma ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 21-09-2017 The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Murliganj P.S. Case No. 05 of 2016, registered for offences punishable under Sections 392/34 of Indian Penal Code. Allegation against the petitioner is that he along with other co-accused snatched Rs. 1,20,000 from the informant on the point of pistol.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he has falsely been implicated in this case and his name has surfaced in this case only on the basis of confessional statement of coaccused and except that there is nothing against him and similarly situated co-accused has been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.09.2016 passed in Cr. Misc No. 5 of 2016. Further petitioner has been in judicial custody for last one

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.23607 of 2017 (5) dt.21-09-2017 and half years.

Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail. Having heard both sides, considering the fact and circumstances of the case and also the fact that petitioner is an accused in seventeen other cases, as such, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. His application for regular bail is, accordingly, rejected.

However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and try to conclude it within a period of six months. At the same time, S.P. Madhepura, is directed to ensure the production of witnesses in the trial court on the date fixed so that the trial can be concluded within the aforesaid period. Further the trial court is directed to send a monthly progress report to this court.

The above direction of this Court shall be complied strictly. (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) sunil/- U T