Aniket Kumar Sah v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.22713 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-53 Year-2017 Thana- KATIHAR District- Katihar ====================================================== Aniket Kumar Sah, Son of Vinay Kumar Sah @ Vijay Kumar Sah, resident of Mohalla- Gandhi Nagar, Durga Asthan, Police Station- Katihar (Town), District- Katihar.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajendra Prasad Sah, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. A.M. Mehta, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 03-10-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner is accused in connection with Katihar (Town) P.S. Case No. 53 of 2017 registered under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1-b)A and 27 of the Arms Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prayer for bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected vide order dated 19.07.2017 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 21157 of 2017 by this Court and petitioner is in custody since 25.01.2017, but till now, while the case of the petitioner has been committed to the court of Sessions numbered as Sessions Trial No. 160 of 2018, pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Katihar,

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22713 of 2018(6) dt.03-10-2018 2/2 but the charge has not been framed against him. A report regarding the present stage of trial has been received through letter dated 17.09.2018 from the court of Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Katihar, which shows that the case is pending for appearance of one other accused. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no fresh ground to reconsider the prayer for bail of the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected for the present. However, the trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the petitioner within one year by taking all effective steps. If the trial of the petitioner is not concluded within aforesaid period of one year, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) Bhardwaj/- U T