Patna High CourtCR. MISC./25000/2017rejected

Rajan Kumar Yadav @ Pintu @ Ranjan Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2017-07-05Mr. Justice Vinod Kumar Sinha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.25000 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -88 Year- 2016 Thana -JHANJHARPUR District- MADHUBANI ====================================================== Rajan Kumar Yadav @ Pintu @ Ranjan Kumar Yadav S/o Isho Lal Yadav R/o Village - Balua, P.S. - Laukahi, District - Madhubani. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ajit Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 05-07-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

This is an application for bail in connection with Jhanjharpur (Arariya Sangram) P.S.Case No. 88 of 2016, G.R.No. 991 of 2016, registered for the offences punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

Petitioner is not named in the FIR and later on his name transpires during course of investigation. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that except confessional statement of co-accused there is nothing against the petitioner and there is no recovery from the possession of the petitioner and he has not been put on TIP. It has further been submitted that co-accused has been granted bail by this Court (Annexure-2) and he is in custody since 5.8.2016.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25000 of 2017 (3) dt.05-07-2017 2/2 Heard learned APP also, who has opposed the prayer for bail stating that petitioner has criminal antecedents as he has been made accused in five other cases also.

So far submission that co-accused has been granted bail, it does not appear that he has criminal antecedent. In view of the fact that petitioner has criminal antecedents as he has been made accused in five other cases of similar type, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

However, learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the petitioner and try to conclude it within nine months. If trial is not concluded within the same period, petitioner may renew his prayer for bail.

Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) spal/- U