Patna High CourtCR. MISC./27657/2017dismissed

Umesh Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

2017-07-26Mr. Justice Vinod Kumar Sinha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.27657 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -19 Year- 2016 Thana -BARURAJ District- MUZAFFARPUR ======================================================

1. Umesh Mahto, son of Late Rajdeo Mahto, Resident of Village Birahima Bazar, P.S.- Baruraj, District- Muzaffarpur.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Virendra Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Umanath Mishra ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 26-07-2017 Heard the parties.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Baruraj P.S.Case No.19 of 2016 registered for offences punishable under Sections 121, 121A, 414 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1-B)A/26(II) 35 of the Arms Act and Section 20/22 of N.D.P.S. Act and Section 10,11, 13, 17, 18 , 18A, 19 and 20 U.A.P.Act.

Earlier the petitioner had moved before this Court for grant of regular bail which was rejected by this Court vide order dated 22.2.2017 passed in Cr. Misc. No.7808 of 2017 with an observation that the learned trial court shall try to conclude it within a period of one year.

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.27657 of 2017 (3) dt.26-07-2017 2/2 the heroine was not recovered rather one country-made Pistol and cartridges were recovered in this case. Status report was also called from and from perusal of the same it appears that the matter is pending for cognizance. From perusal of the F.I.R., it appears that one country-made Pistol and three cartridges and 50 grams of heroine were also recovered and from this petitioner one pistol and two cartridges were also recovered.

Considering this aspect of the matter, prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected with observation to conclude the trial within a period of one year.

Heard learned A.P.P. also.

In such view of the matter, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, as such the learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and if not concluded the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after a period of one year.

With the aforesaid observation, this application is dismissed. (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) chn/- U