Patna High Court - Orders
Satyendra Yadav vs The State Of Bihar on 18 April, 2017
Author: Vinod Kumar Sinha
Bench: Vinod Kumar Sinha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.17715 of 2017
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -153 Year- 2016 Thana -MAIRWA District- SIWAN
======================================================
1. Satyendra Yadav S/o Sri Paras Yadav resident of Village - Phoowariya,
P.S. - Mairwa, District - Siwan.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
.... .... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gajendra Kumar Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Smt. Sucheta Yadav
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
2 18-04-2017Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioner is in custody in connection with Mairwa P.S.Case No. 153 of 2016 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 342, 332, 333, 337, 338, 353, 427, 307, 272, 273, 420, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of learned C.J.M., Siwan.
The allegation against the petitioner is that 33 liters of country made liquor and foreign liquor was recovered from the house of the petitioner.
It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. It has been further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that seizure list does not bear the signature of the petitioner or his family Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17715 of 2017 (2) dt.18-04-2017 2/2 members. It has been further submitted that, according to FIR, the petitioner fled away from the place of occurrence. Second part of the occurrence is concerned, admittedly, the petitioner had not participated in the occurrence. The allegation is that 33 liters of liquor was recovered from his house but it is a joint family house.
Heard learned APP also.
Having considered the submissions of both the sides and also considering the fact that the petitioner is accused in similar type of other cases, which is evident from para 3 of the petition, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.
However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and try to conclude the same within a period of seven months and if the trial is not concluded within seven months, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.
(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) singh/-
U T