Md. Shamim @ Md. Sanni @ Sanni v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29810 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-547 Year-2017 Thana- KANTI THARMAL POWER DistrictMuzaffarpur ====================================================== Md. Shamim @ Md. Sanni @ Sanni, aged about 50 years ( Male ) S/o Md. Nabijan @ Navijan , R/o Mohalla- Satpura, Ward No. -3, P.S.- Kanti, DistrictMuzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Sri Pradhan Murli Manohar Prasad, Advocate Sri Raju Kumar , Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Amitesh Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 19-06-2019 Heard Sri Pradhan Murli Manohar Prasad, learned counsel, assisted by Sri Raju Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Amitesh Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

Within a short span of time this is 3rd attempt for grant of bail on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody in connection with Kanti P.S. Case No. 547 of 2017 registered for the offfence under Section 392, 394, 395, 412 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 corresponding to Sessions Trial No. 325 of 2018.

The petitioner's prayer for bail was rejected firstly on 07.05.2018 vide Cr. Misc. No. 26495 of 2018 considering the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29810 of 2019(3) dt.19-06-2019 2/2 fact that he was accused in number of cases relating to robbery and within a few months petitioner filed 2nd bail petition which too stood dismissed on 26.09.2018 vide Cr. Misc. No. 49503 of 2018 and now by way of filing the present petition petitioner has renewed the prayer for bail.

In this case by order dated 08.05.2019 a report was called for from the court below which has been received and kept at flag - 'A'. The report dated 15.05.2019 makes it clear that in the case charge has already been framed on 16.02.2019 and case is fixed for evidence. In view of the fact that charge has already been framed and the case is fixed for evidence, there is no reason to review my earlier order. The prayer for bail again stands dismissed.

Considering the fact that petitioner is in custody, while dismissing the prayer for bail, it is desirable to observe that the learned trial court may take appropriate steps so that the case may come to its logical end without unnecessary delay. (Rakesh Kumar, J) praful/- U T