Patna High CourtCR. MISC./28223/2017rejected

Ajay Kanu @ Raviji @ Ajay Kandu v. The State Of Bihar

2017-08-30Mr. Justice Hemant Kumar Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.28223 of 2017 ===================================================== Ajay Kanu @ Raviji @ Ajay Kandu S/o Late Fagu Prasad, resident of Village- Chauhar, P.S.- Karpi, District- Arwal. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bhaskar Shankar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 30-08-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 353/34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 25, 27, 35 of the Arms Act, Section 4/5 of Explosive Substance Act and Section 17 of C.L.A. Act. Petitioner appears to be in jail custody since 18.08.2009 in the present case and since then he is languishing in jail custody. Moreover, trial court has reported that almost all the prosecution witnesses have already been examined except one Laxmikant Jha, Sargeant Major.

Therefore, in the aforesaid circumstance as well as taking note of criminal antecedent of the petitioner and his

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.28223 of 2017 (6) dt.30-08-2017 2/2 previous conduct, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail and hence, his prayer for bail in connection with Sessions Trial No. 302 of 2010/ 97 of 2010 arising out of Karpi P.S. Case No. 85 of 1999 pending in the court of Additional Sessions JudgeI(Special Court), Danapur cum Special Judge, Beur Jail, Patna is again rejected.

However, learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the petitioner and try to conclude the same as early as possible, preferably within four months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. It is made clear that if the trial of the petitioner is not concluded within the above stated period, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail. (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J) SHAHZAD/- U T