Ram Narayan Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar
EmailAppeal: (Arising out SLP (Crl. No. 3331/1999)
(From the Judgement and order dated 29/07/1999 in CRLM15264/99 of the High Court of Patna
(From the Judgement and order dated 29/07/1999 in CRLM15264/99 of the High Court of Patna
Petitioner: Ram Narayan Singh & Anr.
Respondent: State of Bihar
Apeal: (Arising out SLP (Crl. No. 3331/1999)
(From the Judgement and order dated 29/07/1999 in CRLM15264/99 of the High Court of Patna
(From the Judgement and order dated 29/07/1999 in CRLM15264/99 of the High Court of Patna
Judges: G.B.PATTANAIK & U.C.BANERJEE,JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 13, 2000
Appearances:
Mr. U.S. Prasad, Advocate Mr. Aditya Kr. Choudhary, Advocate for Petitioner (s)
Mr. B.B. Singh, Advocate for Respondents (s)
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 – Bail – Offence of cheating and misappropriation – Appellants in custody for more than nine months – Application for bail during trial rejected by High Court with right to renew the prayer for bail if the trial did not commence within six months. Held it in a fit case for grant of bail considering the manner in which the trial was proceeding. Appellants ordered to be released on bail accordingly to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. B.B. Singh, learned, counsel for the State of Bihar.
3. The application for bail during trial having been rejected, the appellants approached this Court. They are facing charges under Sections 406/420/34 IPC. and are in custody for more than nine months by now. The allegation is that the appellants misappropriated to the tune of Rs. 75,000/- for giving employment. The earlier order of the High Court was that if the trial does not commence within six months, they can renew the prayer for bail.
4. Having examined the manner in which the trial is proceeding and taking into account the fact that the appellants are already in custody for more than nine months, we think that a case for grant of bail has been made out. We accordingly direct that the appellants be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar.
5. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. B.B. Singh, learned, counsel for the State of Bihar.
3. The application for bail during trial having been rejected, the appellants approached this Court. They are facing charges under Sections 406/420/34 IPC. and are in custody for more than nine months by now. The allegation is that the appellants misappropriated to the tune of Rs. 75,000/- for giving employment. The earlier order of the High Court was that if the trial does not commence within six months, they can renew the prayer for bail.
4. Having examined the manner in which the trial is proceeding and taking into account the fact that the appellants are already in custody for more than nine months, we think that a case for grant of bail has been made out. We accordingly direct that the appellants be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar.
5. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
