Bail application rejected in a case involving extortion and RTC offences. The court denied bail due to the prosecution story and pending cases. The trial court was directed to conclude the trial within one year.
Bail application rejected; trial to be concluded within one year.
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.20180 of 2016
Arising out of PS.Case No. -24 Year- 2016 Thana -KRITYANAND NAGAR District- PURNIA ====================================================== Navin Kumar Mahto, Son of Late Panch Lal Mahto, resident of VillageParora, Police Station- K Nagar in the district of Purnea. .... .... Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Raj Kumar, Advocate. For the Opposite Party : Mr. N.ityanand Tiwary, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 3 18-07-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is languishing in custody since 01.02.2016 in connection with K. Nagar P.S. Case No. 24 of 2016 for the offences instituted under Section 386 of the IPC. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 28.01.2016, this petitioner called the School Guard on Mobile No. 8405865742 and Mobile number of the informant 7033052883 by the petitioner’s Mobile No. 7295980900 several times and asked to stop the work and demanded money and given threat that they would be killed. On 31.01.2016 at about 12.30 P.M., this petitioner alongwith his companions by two motorcycles came at the Pragya Bihar Balika Ucchha Vidyalaya which is under construction and asked the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.20180 of 2016 (3) dt.18-07-2016
2/2
labour to stop the work and made some overt act with the informant and asked him to ask his master to paid Rs. 25,00,000/ransom otherwise, he would not allow the construction and would kill the owner.
It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 01.02.2016 and the charge sheet has been submitted in the present case. The petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. Due to land dispute between the parties, the petitioner has been made accused in the present case.
On behalf of the State it has been submitted that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and there are as many as 18 cases pending against him. As per the allegation, the petitioner is said to have demanded Rs. 25,00,000/- as ransom from the informant.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. The same is rejected in K. Nagar P.S. Case No. 24/2016 (G.R. No. 340 of 2016), pending in the court of the learned C.J.M., Purnea. Anyhow, the trial court is directed to take all necessary steps to conclude the trial preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order.
U.K./U T
(Sudhir Singh, J)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner who is in custody for offences under Section 386 IPC.
Whether the trial court should be directed to conclude the trial within a specific period.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Navin Kumar Mahto
The State of Bihar
Sudhir Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
