Sadab Ahmad @ Sadab Khan @ Lallu Khan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.56462 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-174 Year-2018 Thana- ROSHANGANJ District- Gaya ====================================================== Sadab Ahmad @ Sadab Khan @ Lallu Khan, aged about 36 years, male, S/o Mohiuddin Khan R/O Village- Jolahbigha, P.S.- Pratappur, District- Chatra (Jharkhand).

... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Y.C.Verma, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sheikh Arkan Ahmad, Adv.

For the Opposite Party :

Mr. Ramchandra Singh, APP For the informant :

Mr. Pranav Kumar with Mr. Uday Pratap Singh, Advocates ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 22-12-2021 Heard learned senior counsel for petitioner, learned counsel for the informant as well as the State counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner is expected to honour his undertaking given in the instant case for depositing the requisite court fee and to remove the defects as pointed out by office when called upon to do so by the office. The petitioner seeks bail in Raushanganj (Bankey Bazar) PS Case No. 174 of 2018, instituted for the offence under Sections 386, 341 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

Considering the nature of allegations and recovery attributed to the petitioner, prayer for bail of the petitioner has

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56462 of 2021(2) dt.22-12-2021 2/2 earlier been rejected under order dated 17.02.2021 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 28508 of 2020. The prayer has now been renewed. It is submitted by learned senior counsel that the petitioner has now remained in custody since 28.02.2019. He submits that the allegations are false and a sequel to the various false allegations being levelled against the petitioner which is evident from the fact that he has already been acquitted in six criminal cases.

Learned counsel for the informant and counsel for the State have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. They have stated that at least 18 cases, as per disclosure made by the petitioner in his bail application, are pending against him. Considering the submissions, nature of allegations, antecedents and the recovery attributed to the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of bail to the petitioner. Prayer is rejected.

However, this Court would observe that the learned trial court should proceed with the trial expeditiously without undue adjournment and unnecessary delay.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) shyambihari/- U T