Sunny Kumar Sharma @ Sunny Kumar @ Sunny Sharma v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.50687 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-10 Year-2022 Thana- LAURIA District- West Champaran ====================================================== Sunny Kumar Sharma @ Sunny Kumar @ Sunny Sharma Son Of Munnilal Sharma Resident Of Village - Dhumnagar, Police Station - Nautan, District - West Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Brij Kishor Mishra For the Opposite Party/s :

Dr. Indiwar Kumari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 03-01-2025 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. This is the 2nd attempt of the petitioner. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 29.11.2023 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 74011 of 2023.

3. The petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered for the offence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The following order was passed on 29.11.2023 in Cr. Misc. No. 74011 of 2023:- Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Sessions Trial No. 635 of 2022 arising out of Lauriya P.S. Case No. 10 of 2022 registered for the offence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner is accused of committing dacoity.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50687 of 2024(3) dt.03-01-2025 2/2 submits that the petitioner is in custody since 19.05.2022, 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 sufficient material has come during investigation to show the participation of the petitioner in the crime.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. This application for regular bail is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail if there is no sufficient progress in the trial.

5. From the report of the trial court it appears that the trial has begun in the case and one witness has been examined. The Trial Court has also assured this Court that it will conclude the trial within six months.

6. In view of the above, no ground to review its earlier order is made out. Accordingly, this application for regular bail is hereby rejected.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) Shishir/- U T