Binay Kumar Yadav @ Vinay Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.62896 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -489 Year- 2017 Thana -MUZAFFARPUR TOWN DistrictMUZAFFARPUR ====================================================== Binay Kumar Yadav @ Vinay Kumar, Son of Late Shyamlal Yadav, Resident of Village- Naya Tola, Juranganj, P.S.- Kordha, District- Katihar. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anil Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR ORAL ORDER 05-03-2018 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner, already in custody, seeks bail in connection with Nagar P.S.Case No. 489 of 2017 registered under Sections 382, 411 and 461 of the Indian penal Code and Section 25(1-b), a/26 of the Arms Act.

Allegation in brief is that informant after withdrawing Rs. 80,000/- came out of bank and kept it in the dickey of his motorcycle and went again inside the bank to get the passbook upto-date, when returned back, he found that three persons after breaking open dickey of the motorcycle money was being taken away and on alarm, one person was apprehended and rest two others escaped away and money was recovered from the possession of the petitioner and he was also in possession of a country made pistol.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.62896 of 2017 (6) dt.05-03-2018 2/2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was, merely on the basis of suspicion, apprehended and he is in custody since 15.07.2017 and charge has been framed and he has clean antecedent.

Whereas learned counsel for the State submits that petitioner was apprehended at the spot while committing theft and also found keeping arms.

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the prayer for bail of the petitioner at present is rejected with a direction to the trial court to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within a period of six month. However, if trial is not concluded within the stipulated period, petitioner may renew his prayer of bail. (Arun Kumar, J) Sujit/- U T