Nagendra Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.31842 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -345 Year- 2016 Thana -NAUBATPUR District- PATNA ======================================================

1. Nagendra Singh Son of Wakil Singh Resident of Village-Bhadurpur P.S. Grahni District-Bhojpur.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 26-07-2017 Heard the parties.

This application is for grant of regular bail in connection with Naubatpur P.S.Case No.345 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 392 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. It appears that one Higway Truck was looted by the co-accused persons and later on, on the confession of the co-accused, the highway Truck has been recovered from the house of the co-accused, Dharmendra Kumar. The impugned order also shows that the prayer for bail of co-accused Dharmendra Kumar has already been rejected by this Court, vide order dated 23.3.2017 passed in Cr. Misc. No13867 of 2017 and furthermore, the petitioner is accused in

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.31842 of 2017 (3) dt.26-07-2017 2/2 three other cases of similar type of nature.

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is nothing against the petitioner and no recovery from the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody for more than 1 1⁄2 years.

Heard learned A.P.P. also, who has opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that on the confession of the petitioner, the highway Truck was recovered.

Having heard both sides and in view of the facts and circumstances, as stated above, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, however, the petitioner is in custody for more than 1 1⁄2 years, as such the learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and try to conclude it within a period of nine months. At the same time, the S.S.P., Patna is also directed to ensure presence of the witnesses in this case so that the trial may be concluded within the period as specified.

With the aforesaid observation, this application is dismissed.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) chn/- U T