Sonu Sah @ Sonu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.52844 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-240 Year-2020 Thana- BYPASS District- Patna ====================================================== Sonu Sah @ Sonu Kumar S/o- Uday Kumar Mohalla- Maharajganj Kurmi Tola, Bhutaha Gali, PS- Alamganj, District- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr.Vinod Shanker Modi ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 12-09-2025

1. Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner has renewed his prayer for regular bail in connection with Sessions Trial No. 162 / 2021 arising out of Bypass P.S. Case No. 240 / 2020 dated 23.07.2020 registered for the offence under Section 302, 201, 34 of the I.P.C.

3. The allegation as per the F.I.R. is that the petitioner called upon the Mobile phone to the informant's son namely Chhotu Kumar on 22.07.2020 at about 7:00 PM and on the call of the petitioner the deceased left his house in order to collect Rs. 10,000/- out of the total loan given by the deceased to the petitioner of Rs. 35,000/- and on 23.07.2020 the dead body of the informant's son was found in the pond.

4. The prayer for bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected vide order dated 12.04.2022 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 39429 of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52844 of 2025(3) dt.12-09-2025 2/2 2021 on merit directing the trial court to expedite the trial. A report was called for by this court vide order dated 01.08.2025 regarding the present stage of the trial and in pursuance thereof learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-I, Civil Court, Patna City has submitted the status report of the trial. From perusal of the same it appears that prosecution as well as defence have closed their evidence and the case is fixed for argument.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that argument on part of the prosecution is pending since May, 2024 and from perusal of the report it appears that trial court has requested for four months time to dispose the trial if prosecution as well as defence co-operate during the course of argument.

6. Considering the fact that trial of the case is at fag end, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. The same is rejected. However if trial / argument is not concluded within two months from today, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) praful/- U T