Pragan Marandi @ Prgan Marandi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.10550 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-187 Year-2017 Thana- LAXMIPUR District- Jamui ====================================================== Pragan Marandi @ Prgan Marandi, Son of Lamyu Marandi @ Lehmu Marandi, Resident of Village- Adhbariya, P.S.- Laxmipur, District- Jamui. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Satya Prakash Parasar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. DR. RABINDRA KUMAR ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR ORAL ORDER 22-02-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.

Petitioner, already in custody, seeks bail in connection with Laxmipur P.S. Case No.187 of 2017, registered under Sections 120(B)/121A/122 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substance Act as well as under Sections 16, 18, 20, 21 and 22 of the U.A.P. Act.

Allegation in brief is that in the forest area while the police was patrolling found some persons escaping away, but on chase apprehended this petitioner and one another person, rest other escaped away and from possession of the petitioner one 5 liter cane bomb, one electronic detonator with 20 meters wire were recovered and was said to be the member of the extremist group.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10550 of 2018(2) dt.22-02-2018 2/2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has no criminal antecedent and has falsely been implicated in this case whereas the learned counsel for the State submits that cane bomb and electronic detonator with wire were recovered from possession of the petitioner and he is the member of the extremist group.

Having considered the said facts and circumstances, the prayer of bail of the petitioner is rejected in connection with Laxmipur P.S. Case 187 of 2017, pending in the court of learned ACJM-III, Jamui.

However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and preferably conclude the same within a year.

(Arun Kumar, J) S.KUMAR/- U T