Ravi Kumar @ Ravi Ranjan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

(FROM RESIDENTIAL OFFICE VIA VIDEO APPLICATION) CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34130 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-269 Year-2020 Thana- KANTI District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== RAVI KUMAR @ RAVI RANJAN Son of Late Jagdish Ram Resident of Village - Kalbari, P.S.- Kanti, District - Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Gajendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Amit Kumar Rakesh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 25-08-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Kumar Rakesh, learned A.P.P. for the State.

This is the second attempt of the petitioner to obtain regular bail in connection with Kanti P.S. Case No. 269 of 2020 registered for the offence under Section 25(1-b)a, 26, 35 of the Arms Act.

Earlier the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected by this Court after noticing the kind of weapons and ammunitions as also the quantum of recovery from the house of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has remained in custody for about 10 months in connection with this case, therefore considering the maximum period of punishment prescribed under relevant provisions the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34130 of 2021(3) dt.25-08-2021 2/2 petitioner deserves privilege of bail.

On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner. It is submitted that recovery has been made from the house of this petitioner and at this stage when the case is at the stage of prosecution evidence, the petitioner does not deserve privilege of bail. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the trial court's report saying that the case is now fixed for prosecution evidence, this Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail at this stage.

Let the trial court expedite the trial and all endeavours be made to conclude the same within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order. The Public Prosecutor and concerned authorities responsible to produce the witnesses must cooperate in early conclusion of trial. If for no reason attributable to the petitioner the trial is not concluded within a period of six months, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) Rajeev/- 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'.