Sheo Shankar Sahni @ Shiv Shankar Sahani v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7737 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-602 Year-2018 Thana- BAGHA District- West Champaran ====================================================== SHEO SHANKAR SAHNI @ SHIV SHANKAR SAHANI S/o Lalan Sahni @ Lalan Choudhari Resident of Village- Nadda Khekhariya Tola, P.S.- Bagaha Bhairoganj, Distt- West Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Mitali For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Kumar Ranjit Ranjan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 24-06-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.
The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Bagaha (Bhairognaj) P.S. Case No. 602 of 2018 for the offence under Sections 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that earlier the prayer for bail of this petitioner had been rejected by this Court vide order dated 09.07.2019 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 29032 of 2019. It is further submitted that there is no likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future which is evident from the report received from 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bagaha, West Champaran and the petitioner is rotting in judicial custody since 10.12.2018.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7737 of 2020(5) dt.24-06-2020 2/2 Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that earlier the prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected by considering all the factual material of the case and no fresh ground is available on record to reconsider the prayer for bail of the petitioner. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of this petitioner is rejected.
However, the learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of six months from the date of this order.
(Arvind Srivastava, J) brajesh/- U T