IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CR. APP (DB) No.1422 of 2007
Guddu Rai, son of Gorakh Rai, resident of Village-Semraon,
Police Station - Meerganj, District- Gopalganj.
...........Appellant.
Versus
The State of Bihar ................................Respondent.
-----------
12 01. 03. 2011. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned
counsel for the State and learned counsel for the
informant.
The appellant has preferred present
Interlocutory Application No. 201 of 2011 for grant of bail
mainly on the ground that he has remained in custody for
about seven years and one month.
This appellant has been convicted with some
other accused for offences under Sections 302/34 of the
Indian Penal Code as well as some other charges and is
undergoing imprisonment for life. His prayer for bail has
been earlier rejected on two occasions on merits of the
case.
Ordinarily, this Court grants bail in such offence
if the appeal can not be disposed of within reasonable
period and the convict undergone long period in custody
such as seven years. In this particular case, informant has
2
appeared and on his behalf it has been submitted that this
appellant does not deserve bail because he is habitual
offender and, although, some cases have been ended in
acquittal, but as per statement of the Investigating Officer,
he was earlier involved in 47 cases. A rejoinder to the
Interlocutory Application has been filed to show that this
appellant has fled from custody and absconded on 7th
March, 2002 till 28th September, 2004. The details of
some cases pertaining to that period and later period have
also been furnished by the informant in the rejoinder. A
reply to the rejoinder has been filed on behalf of the
appellant to show that out of 47 cases mentioned by the
Investigating Officer, in about 30 cases the appellant is not
named as an accused and no charge sheet has been
submitted against him. The rejoinder further shows that
out of five cases mentioned in the rejoinder of the
informant, the appellant has been acquitted in two cases
and in another case he has been allowed bail.
There may be certain discrepancies in number of
cases pending against the appellant from before or
thereafter, but this Court finds some substance in the
submissions advanced on behalf of the informant that the
3
appellant is involved in large number of criminal cases and
offences of those cases appeared to be professional.
In that view of the matter we are not persuaded
to grant bail to the appellant.
Let hearing of this appeal be expedited before
an appropriate Bench preferably within six months.
( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)
m.p. (Gopal Prasad, J.)