Suraj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.57175 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-438 Year-2022 Thana- MALSALAMI District- Patna ====================================================== SURAJ KUMAR SON OF JAUNURI SAHANI @ JITENDRA KUMAR R/O VILLAGE- BANSTAL, SABALPUR, PS.- NADI, DIST. -PATNA ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Jay Ram Prasad, Adv For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Nawal Kishore Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 31-01-2025 Heard the parties.

2. This is the second attempt of the petitioner for the prayer of bail.

3. The following order was passed on 13.12.2023 in Cr. Misc. No. 66905 of 2023:

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered for the offence under Section 147, 148, 149, 341, 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, while committing dacoity in Toyota Showroom, the criminals had assaulted one of the guards who died subsequently during treatment.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.57175 of 2024(5) dt.31-01-2025 2/3

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 16.09.2022, he is quite innocent and has not committed any offence.

5. Learned A.P.P. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that materials have come during investigation to connect the petitioner with the dacoity in Toyota Showroom. In the impugned order, it is stated that petitioner has 12 antecedents but learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has 5 antecedents.

6. Considering the criminal antecedents and the fact that petitioner is involved in the dacoity, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, even though some co-accused has been granted bail. This application is dismissed.

7. The Additional District and Sessions Judge-IV, Patna City is directed to expedite the trial of the petitioner in connection with S.Tr. No. 688 of 2023 and conclude the trial at the earliest. If required, he may hold the trial on day to day basis.

8. The S.S.P. Patna is directed to see to it that the witnesses are produced regularly so that the trial is not delayed.

9. With the aforesaid direction, this application is dismissed.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.57175 of 2024(5) dt.31-01-2025 3/3

10. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Additional District and Sessions Judge-IV, Patna City through District Judge, Patna and S.S.P., Patna through FAX for its compliance forthwith.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of eight charge sheeted witnesses, four have been examined.

5. Considering the fact that the trial is continuing, no ground for review of the earlier order is made out. This application is dismissed.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) kiran/- U T