Patna High CourtCR. MISC./26488/2021rejected

Sonu Kumar @ Sonu Kumar Sah v. The State Of Bihar

2021-08-25Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26488 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-175 Year-2019 Thana- LAHERIYASARAI District- Darbhanga ====================================================== SONU KUMAR @ SONU KUMAR SAH S/o Ramchandra Sah R/o MohallaAllalpatti, P.S.- Laheriasarai, District- Darbhanga ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Umesh Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.A.G.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 25-08-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with S.Tr. No. 391 of 2019 arising out of Laheriasarai (Benta O.P.) P.S. Case No. 175 of 2019 for the offence under Section 302 and 120B 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 06.03.2020 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 82438 of 2019. The petitioner is rotting in judicial custody since 10.05.2019 i.e. more than two years and there is no substantial progress in the trial. A report was called for regarding the stage of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26488 of 2021(3) dt.25-08-2021 2/2 trial and the same has bee received from the court below which indicates that due to non-appearance of the accused persons, who are on bail, charges have not been framed. Subsequently, petitions under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. have been filed for discharge on behalf of the accused persons and due to which the trial of the case has been delayed. Moreover, the accused persons were directed to remain present in the court for framing of charge so that trial of the case is expedited.

Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that earlier the prayer for bail of this petitioner has been rejected on merits and now no fresh ground is made out for reconsideration of the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of this petitioner is rejected. (Arvind Srivastava, J) brajesh/- U T