Dismissed

Mukesh Kumar Vishwakarma v. The State Of Bihar

Patna HC27 Aug 2014CR. MISC./21842/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court rejected the bail application as not being a fit case. The trial court was directed to expedite the trial, with police cooperation, to conclude it within six months. If in default, the petitioner is to be released on bail.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for bail rejected. Trial to be concluded within six months. If in default, lower court to release petitioner on bail.

Mukesh Kumar Vishwakarma Vs The State Of Bihar — Bail and Remand | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.21842 of 2014

¶2

Arising Out of PS.Case No. -951 Year- 2013 Thana -SASARAM NAGAR District- SASARAM (ROHTAS) ====================================================== Mukesh Kumar Vishwakarma, S/o Umashankar Vishwakarma, resident of village - Baknaura, P.S. - Rohtas, District - Rohtas at Sasaram. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shakil Ahmad Khan, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. S.M. Rahman, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL ORDER 3 27-08-2014 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.

¶3

Three motorcycle borne criminals on the point of pistol took away motorcycle and other items whereupon they were chased and during course thereof, two out of three miscreants were apprehended by the villagers who are none else but Mukesh Kumar Vishwakarma, petitioner as well as one Rahul Kumar. On personal search, from the possession of the petitioner one live cartridge was recovered while from possession of Guddu Chourasia one golden locket was seized. The stolen motorcycle was also recovered therefrom.

¶4

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that from written report itself it is apparent that two miscreants out of three were armed with fire arm. One managed to escape and other

¶5

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21842 of 2014 (3) dt.27-08-2014

¶6

¶7

two were apprehended but from their possession no fire arm has been recovered and that belies the prosecution story with regard to complicity of petitioner in the occurrence. The police only to justify shown the presence of one cartridge otherwise no incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. It is also apparent that petitioner, in the background of presence of criminal antecedent, has fallen prey of false implication. It has also been submitted that petitioner happens to be under custody since 11.09.2013.

¶8

On the other hand, learned APP opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that from the nature of the offence wherein petitioner found involved since before happens to be dacoity as well as robbery. It is also apparent that after having the motorcycle snatched away by the miscreants, informant informed his relatives, villagers, friends, police and tracing the petitioner, lastly petitioner along with co-accused, Guddu were apprehended.

¶9

As such, I do not see it a fit case for grant of bail. Prayer for bail is rejected.

¶10

Because of the fact that charge-sheet has already been submitted, the learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial. Taking into account the criminal antecedent of the petitioner, the Superintendent of Police, Rohtas is directed to co-operate by

¶11

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21842 of 2014 (3) dt.27-08-2014

¶12

¶13

way of producing the witnesses on each and every date so that the trail is concluded at the earliest preferably within six months.

¶14

In case, the trial is not concluded within the aforesaid stipulated period, whereunder petitioner has got no hand, then in that event, the learned lower court, i.e. the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram will release the petitioner on bail on its own satisfaction.

¶15

Let a copy of this order be served upon Superintendent of Police, Rohtas at Sasaram and for that the office is directed so. Side by side, a copy whereof be also handed over to Mr. S.M. Rahman, APP for its strict compliance.

¶16

(Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J)

¶17

perwez

¶18

U T

Mukesh Kumar Vishwakarma v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Kumar Vishwakarma v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Joseph Hansda @ Josef Hasda Vs The State Of Bihar

Zahid Nadaf @ Jahid Nadaf and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar

Krishna Mukhiya @ Sri Krishna Mukhiya Vs The State Of Bihar

Niranjan Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar

Md. Shamim Alam Vs The State Of Bihar

Suresh Dome Vs The State Of Bihar