Patna High CourtCR. MISC./30785/2017dismissed

Subhash Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2017-08-16Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 30785 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -22 Year- 2014 Thana -DEO District- AURANGABAD ====================================================== Subhash Yadav, S/o Sitaram Yadav, R/o Village- Kaji Bigha, P.S.- Deo, District- Aurangabad (Bihar).

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raj Kishore Prasad For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Parmanand Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 2.

16-08-2017 Heard Sri Raj Kishore Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Parmanand Prasad, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.

This is the 2nd attempt for grant of bail on behalf of the petitioner in Sessions Trial No. 450 of 2016/221 of 2016 (arising out of Deo P.S. Case No. 22 of 2014) registered for offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 188, 427, 307, 353, 120(A) of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Section 17 of C.L.A. Act ( i.e. Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932) and Sections 10/20 of UPA Act {i.e. Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967}.

Earlier, the prayer for bail of petitioner was rejected on 19-10-2016, vide Cr. Misc. No. 43010 of 2016, considering the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.30785 of 2017 (2) dt.16-08-2017 2/2 nature of accusation as well as the fact that petitioner was accused in number of cases relating to serious offences. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though, the petitioner is in custody since 23-02-2016, till date, charge has not been framed, whereas, the case has already been committed to the court of sessions long back. Considering the fact that on merit as well as considering the antecedents of the petitioner, the prayer for bail was already rejected, there is no reason to review my earlier order. The prayer for bail again stands rejected.

However, considering the fact that petitioner is in custody since 23-02-2016 as well as the fact that case has already been committed to the court of sessions, while dismissing, it is desirable to observe that learned trial court may take appropriate step for early disposal of the case.

(Rakesh Kumar, J.) Anay U T