Munna @ Munna Sonar @ Munna Kumar Sony v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.20039 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -253 Year- 2015 Thana -ARA NAGAR District- BHOJPUR ====================================================== Munna @ Munna Sonar @ Munna Kumar Sony S/o Shiv Nath Sonar @ Shiv Nath Mistri @ Sri Niwas Sonar, R/o Mohalla- Anadnagar, P.S.- Ara Town, District- Bhojpur.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Tapeshwar Sharma ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 26-09-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner has renewed his prayer for bail in connection with Sessions Trial No. 304 of 2016 arising out of Ara Town P.S Case No. 253 of 2015 registered under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The petitioner's application for bail was earlier rejected on 15.12.2015 in Cr. Misc. No. 56133 of 2015 and thereafter once again he moved this Court vide Cr. Misc. No. 28687 of 2016, which was also rejected on 27.07.2016. A report regarding stage of the trial was called for from the court below vide order dated 05.09.2018. The report has

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.20039 of 2018 (3) dt.26-09-2018 2/2 already been received. From perusal of the report, it would appear that the charges were framed in the case on 29.05.2017 against four accused persons, but thereafter, one accused Jitendra Kumar absconded and his record was separated vide order dated 10.01.2018. However, he was arrested subsequently and his record has been amalgamated in the present session trial. The court below has also informed that the case shall be heard on day-to-day basis and summons have been issued against the witnesses. Regard being had to the gravity of the offence and role of the petitioner in the alleged offence, I am not inclined to grant him bail for the present. The application for bail is rejected. In case, the trial is not completed within nine months from today, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail before the court below itself. In case of such an eventuality, the court below will assign specific reasons why the trial could not be concluded within the stipulated period.

(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J) Pradeep/Sneha U T