Patna High CourtCR. MISC./11802/2024dismissed

Sonu Sah v. The State Of Bihar

2024-07-05Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11802 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-256 Year-2022 Thana- AWTARNAGAR District- Saran ====================================================== Sonu Sah S/O DEEPAK KUMAR R/O VILLAGE- NARAON, PS.- AWATAR NAGAR, DIST.- SARAN.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sarveshwar Tiwary For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Mohammad Sufyan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 05-07-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The following order was passed earlier by which the bail application of the petitioner was rejected:- "Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.

2. Let the defect(s), if any, be removed within a period of four weeks from today.

3. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Awtar Nagar P.S. Case No. 256 of 2022 registered for the offence under Sections 302, 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act.

4. As per the prosecution, son of the informant was called by Vijay Shah in the evening and taken away. He was subsequently assaulted and was found dead.

5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner in this case.

6. The petitioner is the assailant of the deceased and is in custody since 01.02.2023 and independent witnesses have seen the petitioner running

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11802 of 2024(4) dt.05-07-2024 2/2 away from the place of occurrence after the deceased was assaulted.

7. In view of the facts and circumstances, as mentioned above, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, the prayer of bail of the petitioner is rejected herewith.

9. The Court below is directed to expedite the trial."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Subodh Kumar Jha has argued this case vehemently and has prayed that the petitioner may be granted bail considering his period of custody.

4. I see no new ground for reviewing my ealier order.

5. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

6. The Court below is directed to expedite the trial of the petitioner and conclude the same at the earliest. (Sandeep Kumar, J) Vikas/- U T