Patna High CourtCR. MISC./27987/2017rejected

Shankar Sah v. The State Of Bihar

2017-07-26Mr. Justice Jitendra Mohan Sharma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.27987 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -170 Year- 2014 Thana -MURLIGANJ District- MADHEPURA ====================================================== Shankar Sah, Son of Late Naseeb Sah, Resident of Village- Mirganj, Ward No. 10, Police Station- Murliganj, District- Madhepura. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Sri Satyendra Narayan Singh (APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 26-07-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel representing the State.

The petitioner wants to renew his prayer of bail which was earlier thrice rejected vide order dated 05.10.2015, 16.03.2016 and 07.12.2016 passed in Cri. Misc. No. 24230 of 2015, Cr. Misc. No. 12643 of 2016 and Cr. Misc. No. 52555 of 2016 respectively, on the ground that the petitioner is suffering in custody since 23.02.2015 having no criminal antecedent. The witnesses during trial has stated that only ten kilograms Ganja was recovered and some of the witnesses have not supported the prosecution version and, as such, the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration The learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer of bail by

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.27987 of 2017 (2) dt.26-07-2017 2/2 submitting that 36.25 Kgs. of Ganja was recovered and trial is in progress.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, finding no good ground for reconsideration of prayer of the bail, again prayer of the bail of the petitioner stands rejected in connection with Special Case No. 04 of 2014/ CIS No. 04 of 2014 arising out of Murliganj P.S. Case No. 170 of 2014 pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Madhepura. However, considering the detention of the petitioner, let the trial be expedited and concluded as early as possible preferably within three months from date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J.) Rajiv/- U T