Randhir Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10517 of 2018 (2) dt.14-03-2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.10517 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -82 Year- 2016 Thana -SARAI District- VAISHALI(HAJIPUR) ====================================================== Randhir Kumar S/o Sri Radhe Singh, R/o Village- Sisauni Prabodhi, P.S.- Sarai, Distt.- Vaishali.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ghanshyam Choudhary For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Surendra Prasad Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 14-03-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner is accused in connection with Sarai P.S. Case No. 82 of 2016 registered under Sections 399, 402 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1-B)A, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act, pending in the court of Sessions Judge, Hajipur at Vaishali.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prayer for bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected vide order dated 11.05.2017 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 20073 of 2017 by this Court and he is in custody since 05.07.2016. It is further submitted that while the charge has been framed against the petitioner and other co-accused by the court of learned Sessions Judge, Vaishali

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10517 of 2018 (2) dt.14-03-2018 at Hajipur, but not a single witness has been examined. It is further submitted that co-accused, Shashikant Kumar @ Sunil, has already been granted privilege of bail by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.03.2017 passed in Criminal Misc. No. 4322 of 2017.

It appears that the prayer for bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected by this Court taking into consideration the criminal antecedent of the petitioner.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no ground to reconsider the prayer for bail of the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. However, the trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the petitioner within six months by taking all effective steps. If the trial of the petitioner is not concluded within aforesaid period of six months, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) Bhardwaj/- U T