Chandan Mallik @ Chandan Dhankar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No 18242 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -57 Year- 2016 Thana -ANDHRAMATH District- MADHUBANI ====================================================== Chandan Mallik @ Chandan Dhankar, son of Shambhu Dhanker @ Ram Lal Dankar, resident of Village - Nirmali, Ward No 8, PS - Nirmali, District - Supaul, permanent address - Resident of Village - Misrouliya, PS - Aurai, District - Muzaffarpur .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr Hriday Narayan Harshit, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr Ram Priya Saran Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 25-04-2017 Heard the parties.
This application is for grant of regular bail in connection with Andhramath Police Station Case No 57 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under Section 392 of Indian Penal Code.
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is not named in the first information report but later on his named transpired during the course of investigation. It has further been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that nothing has been recovered from his possession and he has not been put on test identification parade but his name transpired on the basis of confessional statement. In other cases also, he has been made accused on the basis of confessional statement.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.18242 of 2017 (2) dt.25-04-2017 2/2 Heard learned APP also. Learned APP opposed the prayer for bail.
Having considered the facts and circumstances and in view of the fact that there is confessional statement of the petitioner and he has criminal antecedent, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. However, as the petitioner is in custody, hence, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and try to conclude it within a period of nine months and if not concluded, the petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail. With the aforesaid observation, this application is dismissed.
(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) M.E.H./- U