Mukesh Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.31461 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -89 Year- 2015 Thana -ANDHRAMATH District- MADHUBANI ====================================================== Mukesh Yadav, Son of Digambar Yadav, resident of Village Goth Narhaiya, P.S. Andhra Math, District- Madhubani .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Gagan Deo Yadav, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Sri Aditya Narayan Singh 1(APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 14-09-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel representing the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Andhra Math P.S Case No. 89 of 2015 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 399, 400, 402, 414, of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1-b)A/26/35 of the Arms Act. Allegedly, the petitioner was caught along with other and from possession of the petitioner, one loaded country made pistol was recovered and further on the basis of his confessional statement looted potatoes were also recovered from the house of Raj Kumar Mandal.

Submission is of false implication and that the petitioner is in custody since 27.11.2015 and now he has been

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.31461 of 2016 (3) dt.14-09-2016 2/2 sufficiently penalized, to which learned A.P.P. seriously opposes by submitting that the petitioner was caught with fire arm and further on the basis of his confessional statement looted potatoes were also recovered and the petitioner has got criminal antecedent also.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering the alleged recovery and further criminal antecedent of the petitioner , I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and accordingly, his such prayer stands rejected. The learned trial court is directed to expedite the progress of the case so that the trial be concluded as early as possible preferably within six months, failing which if the petitioner at no fault, may be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J.) Rajiv/- U T