Sonu Sahani @ Sonu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.48083 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -285 Year- 2016 Thana -MOTIHARI MUFASIL DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ======================================================
1. Sonu Sahani @ Sonu Kumar son of Gulab Sahant Resident of VillTikuliya, PS-Muffasil Mothari, District- East Champaran .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kamala Kant Tiwkary & Mr. Kundan Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dr. Rabindra Kumar,m APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 18-01-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Motihari Mufassil P.S. Case No. 285 of 2016 for the offence punishable under sections 387, 506 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Champaran at Motihari.
It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that although he is named in the first information report but there is no eye witness to the occurrence. Only on the basis of mobile location, as appears from the C.D.R., he has been implicated in this case. The petitioner is in custody for about five months. It
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.48083 of 2016 (3) dt.18-01-2017 2/2 has also been submitted that the petitioner has a clean antecedent and that there is delay of eight days in lodging the first information report.
Heard learned A.P.P. also who has opposed the prayer for bail and has stated that there is allegation of demand of ransom of rupees ten lacs. Further the mobile location, as appears from the C.D.R., also supports to the prosecution case. Having heard both sides and in view of the fact stated that there is allegation of demanding ransom by the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. This application for bail is, accordingly, dismissed.
However, the learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and try to conclude the same within nine months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. If the trial is not concluded within the period aforesaid, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.
(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) Amin/- U