Dismissed

Sudama Kumar Rai @ Sudama Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

Patna HC9 Nov 2016CR. MISC./21949/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected a bail application in a dacoity case. Noting the petitioner has criminal antecedents, prior guilty confession, and the trial is near its conclusion, the court declined bail under Sections 395, 397, and 412 IPC and directed the trial court to conclude the trial within four months.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; trial directed to conclude within four months.

Sudama Kumar Rai @ Sudama Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar — Bail and Remand | Patna HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.21949 of 2016

¶2

Arising Out of PS.Case No. -75 Year- 2013 Thana -BANIAPUR District- SARAN ====================================================== 1. Sudama Kumar Rai @ Sudama Kumar @ Sudama Rai s/o Late Jharilal Rai resident of village- Rampur Bindalal Ke Mathiya, P.S. Ekma Distt Saran at Chapra. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vijay Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. B.N. Pandey (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 3 09-11-2016 Heard both sides. The petitioner seeks bail in Baniyapur P.S. Case No. 75/2013, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code. Later on Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code was added.

¶3

The Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Janta Bazar Branch alleged that a Bolero overtook the cash van of his Bank and 9-10 persons intercepted the vehicle and looted away more than rupees one crore from the van.

¶4

It is submitted that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and the petitioner is rotting in jail since 27.04.2013, but it appears that the petitioner was apprehended. The petitioner

¶5

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21949 of 2016 (3) dt.09-11-2016

¶6

2/2

¶7

confessed his guilt and on the basis of which Rs. 4,14,000/- was recovered, besides fixed deposit certificates, LIC policy and PAN Card etc. The prayer of bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected. The petitioner has got criminal antecedents and as many as six criminal cases are pending against the petitioner. 11 prosecution witnesses have already been examined.

¶8

Considering the fact aforesaid and the fact that the trial is at the fag end, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above named on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

¶9

The learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶10

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.)

¶11

Rakhi

¶12

U T

Sudama Kumar Rai @ Sudama Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudama Kumar Rai @ Sudama Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Md. Amzad Vs The State Of Bihar

Bharat Rai and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar

Jitendra Rai @ Lilku Rai and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar

Mrigendra Deo @ Mrigendra Kumar Deo Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Kishore Sah Vs The State Of Bihar

Promod Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar