Suman Shrivastava @ Sudhansu Suman v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.46452 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-85 Year-2015 Thana- KARJA District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Suman Shrivastava @ Sudhansu Suman Son of Vijay Krishna Sinha, Resident of Mohalla- Jhitkahiya, P.S.- Brahampura, Distt - Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Arun Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Nirmal Kumar Sinha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 31-07-2019 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The present attempt is a second attempt at the behest of the petitioner for grant of regular bail in connection Karja P.S. Case No. 85 of 2015 instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 307, 302, 120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code inasmuch as the earlier prayer of the petitioner for grant of regular bail was rejected by this Court by an order dated 04.07.2018 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 24530 of 2018. The allegation against the accused persons is conspiring together and lobbing bomb on the informant and others resulting in death of an Advocate and a small child. It is alleged that the said Advocate was responsible for undertaking case against the veteran criminals and was doing pairvi on

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46452 of 2019(2) dt.31-07-2019 2/2 behalf of the informant of this case.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is languishing in custody since 20.11.2017 and there is no possibility of completion of trial in near future, hence the petitioner be directed to be released on bail. It is further submitted that there is no evidence whatsoever as against the petitioner herein so as to substantiate the allegation levelled against the petitioner herein.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned A.P.P. for the State, I find that there is no change in circumstance from the time this Court had rejected the prayer for bail of the petitioner herein till today and moreover, not only the petitioner has been alleged to have engaged in commission of heinous crime but has a bad criminal antecedent and is a veteran criminal. In such view of the matter, this Court does not find any reason to reconsider the prayer of the petitioner for grant of regular bail, hence the present petition stands dismissed.

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) Tiwary/- U T