Ram Pukar Sahani v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.30220 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-249 Year-2017 Thana- CHAKIA District- East Champaran ====================================================== Ram Pukar Sahani, Son of Pradeep Sahani, Resident of Village- Baida Baishaha, PS.- Chakia, District- East Champaran, Motihari. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Gupta For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sri Ashok Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR ORAL ORDER 04-07-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.

Petitioner, already in custody, seeks bail in connection with Chakia P.S. Case No.249 of 2017 registered under Sections 461 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioner seeks bail though he was earlier granted bail by this Court vide order dated 27.02.2018 passed in Cr. Misc. No.11604 of 2018 but subject to verification of his criminal antecedent as in the bail application, the petitioner had asserted that he has no criminal antecedent. Now it is submitted that inadvertently one criminal antecedent could not be mentioned in the earlier application, therefore, the petitioner is not being released.

The suppression of criminal antecedent in the earlier

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.30220 of 2018(4) dt.04-07-2018 2/2 bail application tantamounts to suppression of fact and by suppressing the fact the petitioner obtained the bail. However, the Court put a condition for verification of the criminal antecedent of the petitioner before release then it was detected and the trial court, as per direction, did not release the petitioner. The aforesaid submission is misconceived in the facts of the case. The bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 27.02.2018 passed in Cr. Misc. No.11604 of 2018 is hereby cancelled for suppression of the criminal antecedent of the petitioner.

The prayer of bail of the petitioner is rejected. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial and preferably conclude the same within six months since the day of the framing of the charge.

If the trial is not concluded within the stipulated period, the petitioner may renew his prayer of bail. (Arun Kumar, J) S.KUMAR/- U T