Patna High CourtCR. MISC./11210/2016rejected

Arjun Rajbanshi v. The State Of Bihar

2016-03-10Mr. Justice Hemant Kumar Srivastava2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11210 of 2016 (2) dt.10-03-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.11210 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -45 Year- 2001 Thana -SIRDALA District- NAWADA ======================================================

1. Arjun Rajbanshi Son of Late Jharo Rajbanshi resident of VillageParoriya, P.S.- Sirdala, District- Nawada. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Krishna Deo Raj For the Opposite Party/s Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 02/ 10.03.2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.

Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered under section 47A of the Excise Act as well as section 3/ 4 of the Explosive Substance Act.

Petitioner is named in the first information report with accusation that country made liquors were recovered from the hut of the petitioner. The said recovery was made in the year 2001 and subsequently, first information report was lodged on 17.5.2001 but the petitioner could be remanded in this case on 31.12.2015. The charge sheet against him has already been submitted showing him as absconder and cognizance was taken against him on 2.8.2005. Therefore, taking note of above stated facts and circumstances as well as this aspect of the matter that the petitioner carries criminal antecedent, I am not inclined to release him on bail

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11210 of 2016 (2) dt.10-03-2016 and accordingly, his prayer for bail in connection with Sirdala P.S. Case no. 45/2001 pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawada stands rejected, at least, at this stage. However, the learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the petitioner and try to conclude the same as early as possible, preferably, within six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, failing which petitioner shall be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail before the learned trial court itself. shahid (Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J) U T