Patna High CourtCR. MISC./41340/2021bail rejected

Mahendra Sahni v. The State Of Bihar

2022-02-25Mr. Justice Purnendu Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.41340 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-45 Year-1996 Thana- BAIKUNTHPUR District- Gopalganj ====================================================== MAHENDRA SAHNI Son of Late Ramswarup Sahni Resident of Village - Salempur, P.S.- Lalganj, Distt.- Vaishali.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Arvind Kumar Singh, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Syed Ehteshamuddin, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER 25-02-2022 Heard the parties.

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

Let the defect(s), if any, be removed within two weeks of the complete start of the physical Court in normal course.

The petitioner, who is in custody since 06.10.2020, seeks regular bail in connection with Baikunthpur P.S. Case No. 45 of 1996 for the offence punishable under Sections 414, 353 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code.

Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that this is a case of misuse of privilege of bail. The petitioner has surrendered himself on 06.10.2020 and considering the period of punishment for the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41340 of 2021(3) dt.25-02-2022 2/2 offences committed under Sections 414, 353 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, he has already remained in jail custody for nearly three years and taking into consideration the allegation made against the petitioner as well as period of his custody, petitioner may be released on bail.

Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. The court below is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously well within a period of six months considering the specific statement of the petitioner's counsel that pairvikar of the petitioner has not taken proper steps in conduct of the trial neither the petitioner was informed that his bail bond has been cancelled for violating the terms and conditions of the privilege of bail.

(Purnendu Singh, J) mantreshwar/- U T