Patna High CourtCR. MISC./42047/2015dismissed

Shah Alam v. The State Of Bihar

2015-11-03Mr. Justice Sudhir Singh2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.42047 of 2015 (3) dt.03-11-2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.42047 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -196 Year- 2015 Thana -THAKURGANJ District- KISANGANJ ====================================================== Shah Alam Son of Niyamat R/o Village Khatkhati, P.S. Kurlikot, District Kishanganj .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Anamul Haque For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Kr.Virendra Narayan(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 03-11-2015 Heard the counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State.

The petitioner is languishing in jail since 21.07.2015 in a case instituted under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Thakurganj (Sukhani) P.S.Case No.196 of 2015 pending in the Court of Shri Aditya Suman, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Kishanganj.

As per prosecution case, it is a case of robbery of some amount on the point of pistol by the accused persons. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 21.07.2015. Chargesheet has been submitted in the case. Petitioner is not named in the FIR. Petitioner has not been put on test identification parade to

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.42047 of 2015 (3) dt.03-11-2015 ascertain his implication in the present case. On behalf of the State, it has been submitted that the petitioner's name has come during course of investigation and he has got as many as eleven cases of similar nature against him. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail to the above named petitioner, same is dismissed.

Anyhow, the court below is directed to take all necessary steps to conclude the trial of the petitioner preferably within a period of nine months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

(Sudhir Singh, J) B.Kr./- U T