Sani Singh @ Sanni Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3712 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-66 Year-2017 Thana- BELSAND District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Sani Singh @ Sanni Singh, S/O Umesh Singh @ Umesh Prasad Singh, R/o village- Banjaria, P.S.- Madhuban, Distt.- East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State Of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ajay Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Bal Mukund Prasad Sinha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 08-06-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

Let the defect (s), as pointed out by the office, be removed within a period of four weeks from today. In the present case, the petitioner seeks bail in connection with Belsand Case No.66 of 2017 registered for the alleged offence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code. Allegation against the petitioner is that he along with other co-accused persons forcibly snatched money, mobile phones and ATM Cards from the informant.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not named in the FIR which was registered against unknown. Till date, no Test Identification Parade has been conducted. Nothing incriminating has been

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3712 of 2022(2) dt.08-06-2022 2/2 recovered from the possession of the petitioner, who is in custody since 11.08.2021.

The contention of the petitioner has been opposed by learned APP, who has submitted that the case diary is required in the matter for better appreciation of fact as the petitioner has a long criminal history.

I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival submission and after having gone through the records, it transpires that the petitioner is having 12 cases instituted against him and he appears to have a long criminal history. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. Accordingly, his prayer for grant of bail is rejected. The trial court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously preferably within a period of nine months. However, if the trial is not concluded within the aforesaid period of nine months, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

(Arun Kumar Jha, J) V.K.Pandey/- U T