Rohan Shah @ Rohaan Shah v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58693 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-320 Year-2020 Thana- DARBHANGA District- Darbhanga ====================================================== ROHAN SHAH @ ROHAAN SHAH SON OF JAWAID ALAM @ MD. JAVED ALAM @ MD. JAWED ALAM R/O VILLAGE- MAIN BAZAR SONARPATTI, P.S.- DALSINGHSARAI, DISTRICT- SAMASTIPUR AT PRESENT R/O VILLAGE- SHAHBAGPUR, MANHAIYA, P.S.- DALSINGHSARAI, DISTRICT- SAMASTIPUR ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Dilip Kumar Roy, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Dr.Mrityunjaya Kr.Gautam, A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 07-12-2022 Heard Mr. Dilip Kumar Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. Mrityunjaya Kr. Gautam, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.
Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Darbhanga Town P.S. Case No. 320 of 2020 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code.
This is second attempt for grant of regular bail on behalf of the petitioner inasmuch as earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected by this Court vide order dated 5.4.2022 passed in Cr. Misc. 47170 of 2021 with liberty to renew his prayer for grant of regular bail after six months if the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58693 of 2022(3) dt.07-12-2022 2/2 trial does not show any progress.
This Court vide order dated 9.11.2022 had called for a report from the trial court regarding stage of trial and in pursuance thereof, the report of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-XI, Civil Court, Darbhanga, dated 23.11.2022 is on record and from perusal of the same, it appears that charges have been framed against the petitioner and others and the learned Trial Court has given he estimated time of six months for conclusion of the trial.
Taking into consideration the nature of allegation and recovery of more than 1 Kg. Gold from possession of the petitioner and the fact that the learned Trial Court has given estimated time of six months for conclusion of the Trial, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected.
However, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after six months if the trial does not show any substantial progress.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) S.Ali/- U T