Rahul Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22117 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-486 Year-2018 Thana- KANTI THARMAL POWER DistrictMuzaffarpur ====================================================== RAHUL KUMAR Son of Sri Subodh Kumar Resident of Village - Panapur, Kariyat, P.S. - Kanti, District - Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Nilesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Anita Kumari Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 04-09-2020 The present petition has been taken up for consideration through the mode of Video Conferencing in view of the prevailing situation on account of COVID-19 Pandemic. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Anita Kumari Singh, the learned APP for the State. The present petition is by way of second attempt for grant of bail, inasmuch as the earlier petition filed by the petitioner for grant of bail before this Court was dismissed vide order dated 14.08.2019, passed in Cr. Misc. no. 37983 of 2019, in connection with Kanti (Panapur O.P.) PS case no. 486 of 2018 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 364, 364(A), 384, 386, 506/34 of Indian Penal Code. The allegation is regarding the accused persons

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22117 of 2020(2) dt.04-09-2020 2/3 including the petitioner herein having arrived at the door of the son of the informant while he was sitting at his door, whereafter, the accused persons had taken the son of the informant along with them in a four wheeler and had demanded a ransom of Rs. 20,000/-. It is a fact that the son of the informant is still traceless.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the trial has not been concluded yet, hence the petitioner has renewed his prayer for bail, thus a sympathetic view be taken since the petitioner is languishing in custody since 22.11.2018.

Per contra, the learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the materials available on record and perusing the earlier order dated 14.08.2019, passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, whereby and whereunder the prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail had been rejected, this Court finds that there has been no change in the circumstance so as to reconsider the prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail and moreover, it is apparent from the aforesaid

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22117 of 2020(2) dt.04-09-2020 3/3 order dated 14.08.2019 that the trial court had only been directed to expedite the trial and make efforts to conclude the same within nine months, however no express or specific directions had been issued to the learned trial court to conclude the trial within a specified period, hence it would not be in the interest of justice to grant bail to the petitioner, once a co-ordinate Bench of this Court has already rejected his prayer for grant of bail.

Thus, the present petition stands dismissed being devoid of any merit.

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) rinkee/- U T