Patna High Court - Orders
Kunj Bihari Yadav vs The State Of Bihar on 22 August, 2017
Author: Vinod Kumar Sinha
Bench: Vinod Kumar Sinha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.38315 of 2017
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -9 Year- 2017 Thana -SIMRIBAZAR District- DARBHANGA
======================================================
1. KUNJ BIHARI YADAV Son of Ram Kripal Yadav Resident of village-
Sher Bihuliya, P.S.- Baheeri, District- Darbhanga
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
.... .... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ram Bali Jha
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Damodar Prasad Tiwary
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
3 22-08-2017Heard the parties.
This application is for grant of regular bail in connection with Simri P.S.case No.9 of 2017 , registered for the offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code.
Allegation against the petitioner as per FIR is that the police intercepted the vehicle and the petitioner and other co- accused persons were arrested and from the vehicle three disposable syringe, three fourteen injection, ketajet 50, ketamine hydrochloride injection, three pieces of rioff injection have been recovered and there is allegation that they were preparing to commit dacoity.
Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38315 of 2017 (3) dt.22-08-2017 2/2 that from his possession some cash has been recovered and so far criminal antecedent is concerned, though he is accused in four other cases but in all those cases he is on bail. Now he is in custody for six months in this case.
Heard learned A.P.P. also, who has opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that not only injections but country- made pistols has also been recovered from the vehicle, apart from the other articles and the petitioner has criminal antecedent.
Having heard both sides and in view of the facts and circumstances, as stated above, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, however, the learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and try to conclude it within a period of seven months and if not concluded, the petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail before the court concerned.
With the aforesaid observation, this application is dismissed.
(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) chn/-
U T