Patna High CourtCR. MISC./34921/2017dismissed

Ajit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2017-08-03Mr. Justice Vinod Kumar Sinha2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.34921 of 2017 (2) dt.03-08-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.34921 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -288 Year- 2016 Thana -NOORSARAI District- NALANDA (BIHARSHARIFF) ====================================================== Ajit Kumar Son of Ram Chandra Singh, R/o Village- Basti, P.S.- Harnaut, District- Nalanda.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Madhuranand Jha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 03-08-2017 The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Noorsarai P.S. Case No. 288 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under sections 386/34, 504 of the Indian Penal Code. Allegation against the petitioner is that there was demand of ransom from the informant and thereafter two persons came for demanding money, the informant gave him 35,000/- and saying that only 35,000/- has been arranged. In the meantime police arrived there but one of the accused was arrested and another was fled away.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that except confessional statement there is nothing against him and there is no recovery from his possession and, apart from that, it also appears that petitioner is accused in another case also. The

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.34921 of 2017 (2) dt.03-08-2017 petitioner has been in custody for more than six months. Heard learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail. Having heard both sides, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. However, learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nalanda is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within a period of 9 months. In case the trial is not concluded within the said period, the appellant would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

With the above observation, this application is dismissed.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) veena/- U