IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.27590 of 2009 ***** Dinesh Yadav, Son of Late Bisundhari Yadav, resident of village- Malpur, Police Station Ghoswari, District-Patna. …. …. Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar …. …. Opposite party ----------- 4. 18.12.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State. Ghoswari P.S. Case No.30/07, which was registered under Section 399, 402, 353, 307 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 25(1-b)A, 26, 27, 35 of the Arms Act. The F.I.R. was lodged on the basis of the information given by the Sub Inspector of Police that on the date of the incidence he had gone with a police party to a village known as Paijna. They had secret information about certain persons having gathered to commit a serious crime in the village Malpur. When the police party reached the Malpur village and they started taking position, some people started fleeing and started firing indiscriminately. Petitioner is supposed to have been arrested after he sustained injuries in the police firing, some miscreants fled away. A country made double barrel pistol and four live cartridges were recovered and the present case was instituted thereafter. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been in custody since then and for the offences and the allegations the period of detention should be good enough for him to be enlarged on bail. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner did merit consideration provided he did not have a history of crime behind - 2 - him. The Court had called for the antecedent report and from the antecedent report had emerged that there are 21 cases, many of them of serious heinous type with which he has been charged with. Majority of these cases are of recent enough origin starting in the year 2002. If the report about the antecedent is even prima facie correct then the Court has no hesitation in recording that the petitioner seems to be desperado, who has no respect for law or fear of authority. That is the primary reason why this court is not inclined to enlarge him on bail at this stage. In fact the Court directs the trial Court to take all steps which is required to expedite the trial of the present case and take it to its logical conclusion as early as possible preferably within a period of one year from today. Prayer for bail is rejected. Pawan/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)