Dismissed

Sonu Barnwal v. The State Of Bihar

Patna HC12 Jul 2017CR. MISC./28942/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court dismissed a bail application under the Indian Penal Code, directing the trial court to conclude the trial within nine months. Petitioner is permitted to renew bail prayer thereafter if the trial remains unfinished.

What did the court decide?

Application for bail dismissed; trial court directed to conclude trial within nine months; liberty to renew bail prayer if trial not concluded.

Sonu Barnwal Vs The State Of Bihar — Bail and Remand | Patna HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.28942 of 2017

¶2

Arising Out of PS.Case No. -364 Year- 2016 Thana -BELHAR District- BANKA

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Sonu Barnwal Son of late Awadh Kishore Barnwal, Resident of VillageNarganjo, P.S.- Jhajha, District- Jamui (Bihar).

¶5

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar

¶8

.... .... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance :

¶10

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Jha

¶11

For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Prem Kumar Jha

¶12

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER

¶13

3 12-07-2017 Heard the parties.

¶14

This application is for grant of regular bail in connection with Belhar (Khesar) P.S.Case No.364 of 2016 for the offences under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

The petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. It appears that during the course of investigation, the petitioner has been named in this case.

¶16

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the informant is not named the petitioner in the F.I.R. though F.I.R. been lodged after 18 days and one witness has also named the petitioner in subsequent statement. So far other cases are concerned, in those cases, he has been remanded and except that

¶17

there is nothing against the petitioner.

¶18

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.28942 of 2017 (3) dt.12-07-2017

¶19

2/2

¶20

Heard learned A.P.P. also.

¶21

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 at this stage, however, the learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and try to conclude it within a period of nine months and if not concluded, the petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail before the court concerned itself, who will pass appropriate order considering the materials available on the record at that time.

¶22

With the aforesaid observation, this application is dismissed.

¶23

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J)

¶24

chn/-

¶25

U T

Sonu Barnwal v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu Barnwal 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

Niranjan Kumar Bhagat Vs The State Of Bihar

Amit Sah @ Sukru Vs The State Of Bihar

Yogendra Chaudhary @ Gonga Vs The State Of Bihar

Pawan Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar

Vikee Singh Vs The State Of Bihar

Md. Abbas Vs The State Of Bihar