Patna High CourtCR. MISC./7119/2016rejected

Pankaj Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2016-05-13Mr. Justice Jitendra Mohan Sharma2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7119 of 2016 (4) dt.13-05-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.7119 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -55 Year- 2015 Thana -HALSI District- LAKHISARAI ======================================================

1. Pankaj Yadav, Son of Baleshwar Yadav, Resident of VillageKharagwara, P.S.- Ramgarh Chowk, District- Lakhisarai. .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Arun Kumar Singh No.-5 (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 13-05-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the Sate.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Halsi P.S. Case No. 55 of 2015 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 364/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegedly, Rajeev Kumar, Bank Manager and Sumit Suman the Bank Employee, were kidnapped and ransom of Rs. 40,00,000/- was demanded. During investigation the petitioner was apprehended and as per disclosure made by him both kidnapped persons were recovered from the house of another coaccused Md. Kalam and further two other co-accused were also arrested from there.

Submission is of false implication and that the petitioner has been made victim of circumstances, the Police has wrongly implicated the petitioner, nothing has been recovered from

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7119 of 2016 (4) dt.13-05-2016 conscious possession of the petitioner, mobile recovered from possession of the petitioner is of the petitioner, without any legal and tangible material he is suffering in custody since 18.04.2015 to which learned APP opposes.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering that on the basis of disclosure made by the petitioner the two victims were recovered from the house of co-accused Md. Kalam, at present, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, accordingly, his such prayer stands rejected. However, let the trial be expedited and concluded as early as possible, preferably within nine months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U T