Ragho Rai @ Raghu Rai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33652 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-237 Year-2020 Thana- MINAPUR District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Ragho Rai @ Raghu Rai S/O Rajmangal Rai R/O Village- Hansaur, P.S.- Belsand, Distt.- Sitamarhi.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Syed Ehteshamuddin, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 06-09-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Minapur P.S. Case No. 237 of 2020 for the offences registered under Sections 399, 386, 411, 120(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 25(1-b)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act as well as Sections 17, 18, 19 and 20 of U.A.P. Act.

3. This regular bail has been filed by the petitioner second time. Earlier his bail application was rejected by this Court on merit, vide order dated 31.03.2022 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 19827 of 2021.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody since 01.07.2020 and trial has not been progressed in this case. Accordingly, he may be granted regular bail.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33652 of 2023(7) dt.06-09-2024 2/2

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner and submits that bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected observing that the applicant against whom there are 12 criminal cases in respect of serious offences having checkered history of criminal cases including several crimes registered for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the Court is not assured of the fact that after releasing on bail the applicant would not commit any further offence. He further submits that sanction has been granted to prosecute the petitioner under Sections 17, 18, 19 and 20 of U.A.P. Act on 09.05.2024.

6. It appears from the record that the Trial Court was earlier directed to expedite the trial of the petitioner but due to pending sanction order, the trial has not been proceeded.

7. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and considering the facts that there is no fresh ground for consideration of the bail of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.

(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J) rakhi/- U T