Ajay Singh @ Guddu Baba @ Pintu @ Rohit And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.10160 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -121 Year- 2016 Thana -MAJHAHGARH District- GOPALGANJ ======================================================

1. Ajay Singh @ Guddu Baba @ Pintu @ Rohit, Son of Late Bhagawan Singh, Resident of Village- Saraiyan Basant, P.S.- Taraiya, District - Chapra (Saran).

2. Aditya Tiwari, Son of Ajay Tiwari, Resident of Village- Pachrukhia, P.S. Barauli, District- Gopalganj.

3. Pankaj Kumar Pal @ Munna Pal @ Pankaj Kumar Pandey, Son of Rama Shankar Prasad, Resident of Village- Kushahar, P.S. Mahammadpur, District- Gopalganj.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhramveer For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Binod Kumar 3 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 18-03-2017 The petitioners are in custody since 29.08.2016 in connection with Manjagarh P.S. Case No. 121 of 2016, registered for offences punishable under Sections 394 of Indian Penal Code. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that petitioners are not named in the F.I.R. and nothing has been recovered from them. Later on their name transpired on the confidential information as well as from the footage of C.C.T.V. and they have been in judicial custody since 29.08.2016. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that all the accused persons have many criminal antecedents and all of them are accused in other similar nature of

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10160 of 2017 (3) dt.18-03-2017 2/2 cases.

Having heard both sides, in view of the fact that in the C.C.T.V. footage petitioners have been identified and also the petitioner are accused in other criminal cases of similar nature, as such, I am not inclined to grant the petitioners, the privilege of regular bail, it is accordingly rejected.

However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and try to conclude it within a period of seven months and if the trial is not concluded within the aforesaid period, the petitioners will be at liberty to renew their prayer for bail in the court below itself, which will be considered by the court below on the merit of the case without being prejudiced by the order of this Court. (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) sunil/- U T