Anil Sahani v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.31506 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -51 Year- 2014 Thana -MAKER District- SARAN ======================================================

1. Anil Sahani Son of late Baijnath Sahani Resident of Village- Badhichak Dehi, P.S. Maker, Distt Saran.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Ashok Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 13-07-2017 The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Maker P.S. Case No. 51 of 2014, registered for offences punishable under Sections 385, 386, 212/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the CLA Act.

Allegation against the petitioner is of demand of rangdari.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he has falsely been implicated in this case and he has nothing to do with the said offence and the recovery has been made from the possession of co-accused Brijnandan Rai and not from the petitioner. Further the mobile from which the alleged rangdari was made also does not belong to the petitioner. It has further been submitted that one of the co-accused of this case has already been

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.31506 of 2017 (2) dt.13-07-2017 2/2 granted bail by this Court vide order dated 31.03.2015, passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 12107 of 2015 and petitioner has been in judicial custody since 22.11.2016.

Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that petitioner is the person who has made the demand and on his instruction co-accused of this case has gone to collect the money but was apprehended by the police with the same note that has already been produced before the police. Further petitioner has criminal antecedents as he is accused in four other cases of similar nature. It has also been submitted that in this case now charge has been framed and the evidence is likely to be commenced.

Having heard both sides, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation, 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 one year. (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) sunil/- U