Akash Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.32174 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -378 Year- 2016 Thana -KUDHNI District- MUZAFFARPUR ====================================================== Akash Kumar Son of Arun KUmar Singh, R/o-Vill-Jarang Rampur, P.S. Vaishali (Besar), District-vaishali.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anish Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Sri Uday Chand Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 01-08-2017 This application is for grant of regular bail in connection with Kudhani P.S. Case No. 378 of 2016 registered for the offence(s) under section(s) 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Allegation against the petitioner is of recovery of one stolen motor cycle from his possession.

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the co-accused having similar allegation, has already been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 10.05.2017 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 21328. The petitioner is in custody about six months.

Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor also. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor oppose the prayer of bail on the ground that the co-accused, who has been granted bail against

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.32174 of 2017 (3) dt.01-08-2017 2/2 whom, there is no allegation of recovery of stolen motor cycle in this case, but against the petitioner, there is an allegation of recovery of stolen motor in this case and there is a confession and apart from that the petitioner is accused in three other cases, which has been mentioned in paragraph three of this application. Having heard both sides and in view of the facts and circumstances as stated above, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. However, the Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial of the petitioner and try to conclude the same within seven months from the date of receipt or production of a copy of this order. If the trial is not concluded within the aforesaid period, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail.

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) Mahesh/- U T