Sanjay Sahni v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58397 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-296 Year-2004 Thana- MINAPUR District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== SANJAY SAHNI, Son of Late Munilal Sahni Resident of Village-Bara Bharti, P.S-Minapur, District-Muzaffarpur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Dilip Kumar Roy For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Amitesh Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 09-11-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State through virtual court proceedings. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code. The report was called for vide order dated 29.09.2020 and the same has been received which is kept at Flag 'C' from the court of 15th Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur submits that Minapur P.S. Case No. 296 of 2004 (S.Tr. No. 464/2019) as per D.J. G.O. No. 258/2020 on 05.10.2020. It also submits that the case is fixed for evidence and order of issuance of Summons to witnesses has been passed by the learned Predecessor.

Allegation against the petitioner along with other accused persons is of committing murder of the victim by gun shot and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58397 of 2019(8) dt.09-11-2020 2/2 also took away the house hold articles.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 24.12.2018.

Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail petition.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected in connection with Minapur P.S. Case No. 296/2004 from the Court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur. The trial court is directed to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of nine months from today and both the parties are directed to extend their full cooperation in early conclusion of the trial. If the trial is not concluded within the stipulated period, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail. Accordingly, this application is disposed of. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) amitkumar/- U T