Petitioner sought bail for alleged loot under Section 394 IPC. Court rejected bail due to recovery of looted items from petitioner, but directed court to conclude trial in 9 months
Application for bail rejected; directive to conclude trial within nine 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.39689 of 2017
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -39 Year- 2017 Thana -PURAINI District- MADHEPURA
====================================================== Sintu Kumar S/o Sarwan Mandal, R/o Village-Itahari, P.S. Alamnagar, District-Madhepura.
.... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pawan Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Yogendra Kumar Singh (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA JAISWAL ORAL ORDER
2 21-08-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and APP for the State.
The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Puraini P.S. Case no. 39 of 2017 registered under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code.
One motorcycle and one mobile phone of the informant is said to have been looted by three unknown miscreants assaulting on his head by means of brick bat.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case at the instance of his enemy. Nothing incriminating article has been recovered from his conscious physical possession. His name is surfaced only on the basis of confessional statement. The petitioner has been languishing in custody since 12.05.2017. The
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39689 of 2017 (2) dt.21-08-2017
2/2
petitioner has no criminal antecedent.
From the perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the looted mobile phone was recovered from the possession of the petitioner and on the basis of his confessional statement, the looted motorcycle was recovered from the possession of co-accused Munna Singh.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer is rejected.
However, the learned lower court is directed to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible within nine months from the date of production/receipt of a copy of this order. If the trial is not concluded within the stipulated period, the petitioner may renew his prayer of bail.
(Prakash Chandra Jaiswal, J)
rohit/-
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail given he was falsely implicated and has no criminal antecedent?
Whether the trial should be concluded within a specific timeframe to justify release on bail?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sintu Kumar
The State of Bihar
Prakash Chandra Jaiswal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
