Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.26242 of 2012 ====================================================== Bindeshwar Singh, Son of Late Vishuni Singh @ Darogi Singh. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AKHILESH CHANDRA ORAL ORDER 4 10-09-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, who is armed with carbon/xerox copy of the case diary. The petitioner, who is languishing in custody, seeks bail in a case registered under [STATUTE] . In this case of the year 1982, instituted against unknown, petitioner’s name emerged during investigation immediately after recording of the fardbeyan in statements of owners of other houses, wherein, in same sequence dacoity is said to have been committed. Submission is of false implication without any explanation for non-disclosure of the name of the petitioner in fardbeyan itself which was recorded after a few hours of the occurrence giving sufficient time to get the miscreants identified, if at all, they were identified by the victims or anyone else. On the other hand, while objecting the prayer, it is pointed out that apart from the disclosure of name of the petitioner by several persons, process of attachment etc. was also executed much earlier, but in spite of knowing everything fully well, petitioner has absconded himself and now soon after his apprehension, the trial has also been commenced in the month of May, 2012. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26242 of 2012 (4) dt.10-09-2012 2 specially, the huge delay, for the present, prayer for regular bail of the above named petitioner, in connection with Ekangersarai P.S. Case No. 35/1982 (Sessions Trial No. 259/2011), pending in the court of learned Additional District Judge - IV, Hilsa (Nalanda), is hereby, refused with a direction to the trial court to proceed expeditiously with the trial and avoid undue delay and adjournments. Further, petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer before the trial court itself, if so wishes, after examination of the witnesses, who in their statements recorded during investigation claimed to identify him during the occurrence. Praveen-II/- (Akhilesh Chandra, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 395

Statute Text:
Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. Dacoity. Whoever commits dacoity shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.