Ravindra Sahni v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4153 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-931 Year-2019 Thana- AHIYAPUR District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Ravindra Sahni (Male), aged about 22 years, son Of Lal Dev Sahani @ Lal Dev Sahni, resident of Village Vijay Chhapra, P.S.- Ahiyapur, DistrictMuzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar.

2.

The Union of India through The Zonal Director, Narcotics Control Bureau, Bihar, Patna Bihar.

... ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Chandra Shekhar Anand, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sangeeta Sharma, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 22-09-2021 The matter has been taken up for hearing online because of COVID-19 pandemic restrictions.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This application for grant of regular bail arises out of Ahiyapur P.S. Case No.931 of 2019 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 399, 402, 414, 411 of the Indian Penal Code, under Section 20/22 of the NDPS Act and under Section 25(1-b)a 26/35 of the Arms Act.

The petitioner's prayer for regular bail was earlier rejected by an order dated 16.03.2020 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 76424 of 2019 with an observation that the trial of the case be expedited.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4153 of 2021(4) dt.22-09-2021 2/2 From the report which has been received from the Court of learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur, it transpires that charge has been framed on 17.08.2021. It has further been reported that the Superintendent of Police has informed about production of prosecution witnesses on 06.09.201, 08.09.2021 and 10.09.2021.

Considering the fact that trial of the case is now being expedited, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of regular bail considering the seriousness of the allegation against the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has attempt to convince this Court that since the petitioner has remained in custody for considerable period of time, he deserves privilege of regular bail now.

The said submission is not acceptable to this Court in view of seriousness of the offence. The petitioner shall, however, be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after after six months if there is no substantial progress at the trial. (Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) P. Tiwari/- U T