Patna High CourtCR. MISC./55908/2024rejected

Sujeet Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2024-09-27Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.55908 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-591 Year-2021 Thana- PATLIPUTRA District- Patna ====================================================== Sujeet Kumar son of Arjun Yadav Village- Kurji More Gate No-65, Ps- Digha Dist- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Akhauri Kamal Kishore Sahay, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Satya Nand Shukla, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 27-09-2024 Heard Mr. Akhauri Kamal Kishore Sahay, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Satya Nand Shukla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since 13.12.2021 in connection with Sessions Trial/CIS No. 904 of 2022 arising out of Patliputra P.S. Case No. 591 of 2021, F.I.R. dated 15.11.2021 for the offences punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was twice rejected by this Court vide order dated 29.04.2023 and 05.01.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 36053 of 2022 and Cr. Misc. No. 60697 of 2023 respectively.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. He outrightly submits that the charge has been framed on 25.01.2023 and since then, the trial is not in progress.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55908 of 2024(3) dt.27-09-2024 2/2

5. Vide order dated 02.08.2024 a report was called with regard to the present stage of trial. Report of the learned Trial Court dated 07.08.2024 reveals that in the present case altogether there are three prosecution witnesses out of which two witnesses have been examined (informant and I.O.) and P.W-3 is yet to be cross-examined and discharged as his examination in-chief is yet to be concluded being deferred.

6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner carries three criminal antecedents other than the present one.

7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as report of the learned Trial Court, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Sessions Trial/CIS No. 904 of 2022 arising out of Patliputra P.S. Case No. 591 of 2021 pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-XX, Patna.

8. Prayer is refused.

9. However, learned Trial Court is directed to expedite and conclude the trial at the earliest.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Vanisha/- U T