The Patna High Court denied bail to the petitioner accused of theft and possession of stolen property. The court directed the trial court to conclude the trial within six months, allowing the petitioner to renew his bail petition if the deadline is missed.
Bail denied; trial directed to conclude within six months
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.27681 of 2014
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -951 Year- 2013 Thana -SASARAM NAGAR District- SASARAM (ROHTAS) ====================================================== Guddu Prasad Chaurasiya, Son of Late Budhan Prasad Chaurasiya, Resident of Village Jalallabad, P.S. Rohtas, District Rohtas. .... .... Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anjani Parashar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shardanand Jha (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER
3 16-12-2014 Heard both sides.
Petitioner Guddu Prasad Chaurasiya seeks bail in Sasaram (Darigaon) P.S. Case No. 951 of 2013 registered under Sections 392 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 25(1-b)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the petitioner is said to have been apprehended by the villagers while he was fleeing away with the looted motorcycle and other articles but the villagers have not been made witness to the seizure made.
It appears that the petitioner along with another accused was apprehended by the villagers and from their possession the looted motorcycle as well as ornaments and locket
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.27681 of 2014 (3) dt.16-12-2014
2 / 2
were also recovered.
Considering the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage in connection with Sasaram (Darigaon) P.S. Case No. 951 of 2013 pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram.
However, the trial court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of six months from today. If the trial is not concluded within the aforementioned period, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail.
(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.)
Sanjay/-
U T
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be enlarged on bail given gaps in the seizure evidence.
Whether the trial court is directed to conclude the trial within a specific timeframe.
Whether the petitioner may renew bail prayer if the trial is not concluded within six months.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Guddu Prasad Chaurasiya
The State of Bihar
Prabhat Kumar Jha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
