Prashant Kumar Sinha v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27082 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-146 Year-2017 Thana- ARA NAGAR District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Prashant Kumar Sinha Son of Late Kamal Kant Karn Resident of Village - New Colony, Jail Hatta, Sarvodaya Nagar, Daltanganj, P.S. - Daltanganj, District - Palamu, Jharkhand.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha, Adv For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER 03-12-2021 Heard the parties through video conferencing. Petitioner who is in custody since 23.01.2018 seeks regular bail in connection with Ara Nagar P.S. Case No. 146 of 2017 registered for offences punishable under Section 406, 420, 120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Prosecution case in brief is that Branch Manager of D.J.N. Group of Companies situated in Ara, filed the present complaint case alleging therein that after collecting huge amount from several customers on assurance of giving interest @ 4 to 10 percent the accused persons closed their company and fled away.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody for about three years

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27082 of 2021(2) dt.03-12-2021 2/2 and there is no substantial progress in the trial. He further submits that petitioner has earlier moved before this Court for grant of bail by filing Cr. Misc. 54302 of 2019 in which this Court vide order dated 02.03.2020 had inter-alia made following directions:- Considering the allegation at this stage, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. However trial court i.e. learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ara, Bhojpur is directed to take up the cases of the petitioner on regular basis and try to conclude it within a period of six months. If it is not concluded, petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

Considering the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, this Court directs the Court below to conclude the trial on day to day basis within a period of three months. If no substantial progress takes place in the conduct of trial, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail. Accordingly, the present bail application stands rejected. (Purnendu Singh, J) Niraj/- U T