Raj Kumar Sahni @ Raju Sahni v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.78331 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-40 Year-2017 Thana- SINDHWARA District- Darbhanga ====================================================== Raj Kumar Sahni @ Raju Sahni Son of Ramsewak Sahni, Resident of VillageSinghwara (North), P.S.- Singhwara, District- Darbhanga. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Chaudhary Prem Kumar Thakur, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Yogendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 16-04-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
The petitioner is languishing in custody for the offence punishable under Sections 25(1-b)A, 26, 35 of the Arms Act in connection with Singhwara P.S. Case No. 40 of 2017 (C.R.I Case No. 688 of 2017).
According to FIR two miscreants were chased and apprehended by the police when they were fleeing after robbing a passenger. One of the miscreant was this petitioner. From possession of this petitioner firearm was recovered whereas from possession of co-accused looted cash was recovered. The report of the trial judge would reveal that out of sixteen, eight prosecution witnesses have already been examined. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78331 of 2018(4) dt.16-04-2019 2/2 petitioner is in custody since 17.03.2017. Out of two criminal antecedents mentioned in para 3 of the bail petition, one is offsuit of the present case. The seizure list witnesses examined during trial have stated that actually they had signed on plain papers.
Considering the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail for the present. Hence, his prayer for bail is refused.
Learned trail court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within six months, failing which petitioner would be at liberty to renew the prayer for bail before the Court below itself.
(Birendra Kumar, J) Banti/Rajan U T