Patna High Court - Orders
Vinay Ravidas @ Purusottam @ Sudhakar @ ... vs The State Of Bihar on 10 April, 2017
Author: Vinod Kumar Sinha
Bench: Vinod Kumar Sinha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.16893 of 2017
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -264 Year- 2016 Thana -SIRDALA District- NAWADA
======================================================
1. VINAY RAVIDAS @ PURUSOTTAM @ SUDHAKAR @ NUT BOLT
@ RANJAN @ VINAY DAS, S/o Ram Ratan Das, Resident of Village-
Malhad, P.S.- Venday (Goh), District- Aurangabad.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
.... .... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manindra Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
2 10-04-2017The petitioner is in custody since 08.11.2016 in connection with Sirdalla P.S. Case No. 264 of 2016, registered for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 379, 427, 436, 504, 506 and 387 Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 15, 18, 19, and 20 of U.A.P. Act.
It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner has been named by one witness, namely, Vinod Kumar Yadav, along with 63 other persons on the basis of which petitioner has been arrested in this case, however nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner and so far criminal antecedent of the petitioner is concerned, he is on bail in all other cases.
Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16893 of 2017 (2) dt.10-04-2017 2/2 and submitted that case against petitioner is not only under the above mentioned Sections of Indian Penal Code but also under Section 17 of Criminal Amendment Act and Section 15, 18, 19 and 20 of U.A.P. Act, as such, he does not deserve the privilege of regular bail.
Having heard both sides, considering the fact that petitioner has been named by one witness and further he has criminal antecedent as he is accused in three other cases, as such, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner the privilege of regular bail, it is accordingly rejected.
However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and try to conclude it as early as possible.
(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) sunil/-
U T