Sonu Rai @ Sonu Ray v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

(FROM RESIDENTIAL OFFICE VIA VIDEO APPLICATION) CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2213 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-336 Year-2017 Thana- SAHPUR District- Bhojpur ====================================================== SONU RAI @ SONU RAY Son of Surya Deo Rai Resident of Village Sharangpur, P.S. Shahpur (bahoranpur O.P.), District - Bhojpur. ... ... Appellant

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Respondent ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Mr.N. A. Shamsi,Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Ms.Usha Kumari,Spl.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 29-06-2021 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Usha Kumari, learned Spl. P.P. for the State.

This is the second attempt of the appellant to obtain regular bail in connection with Shahpur (Bahoranpur) P.S. Case No. 336 of 2017, SC/ST Case No. 684 of 2017 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 504/34 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3(1)(r) (s)/3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act.

It appears on perusal of the order dated 27.09.2019 passed in Cri. Appeal (SJ) No. 2915 of 2019 (Annexure '1') that the learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had rejected the prayer for bail of the petitioner after noticing the statements of the witnesses in paragraph '9', '10' and '11' of the case diary who have unanimously supported the occurrence.

Learned counsel for the appellant has taken this Court through the deposition of the informant and has tried to impress upon

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2213 of 2021(4) dt.29-06-2021 2/2 this Court saying that in view of the statements of the informant in course of trial the prayer for bail of the appellant may be considered. Learned Spl.P.P. for the State has drawn the attention of this Court towards the statements made in the deposition of the informant, particularly the Examination-in-Chief. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Spl.P.P. for the State and upon perusal of the records, this Court finds no reason to allow the prayer for bail of the appellant at this stage.

The trial is already going on and it is expected to come to an end in near future. There are also allegations against the appellant that he had fired upon the son of the informant, the prayer for bail of the appellant is, thus, rejected.

Let the trial be concluded preferably within a period of six months after start of normal functioning of the Court. If the trial is not concluded within the aforesaid period, it will be open for the appellant to move this Court afresh.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) SUSHMA2/- U T Note: The ordersheet duly signed has been attached with the record. However, in view of the present arrangements, during Pandemic period all concerned shall act on the basis of the copy of the order uploaded on the High Court website under the heading 'Judicial Orders Passed During The Pandemic Period'.