Patna High CourtCR. MISC./75990/2024dismissed

Sanjeet Mahto @ Sanjeet Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2025-01-24Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.75990 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-274 Year-2021 Thana- LALGANJ District- Vaishali ====================================================== Sanjeet Mahto @ Sanjeet Kumar Son of Ashrafi Mahto Resident of VillageJalalpur, P.S.- Lalganj, District- Vaishali ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mrs. Bela Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Anil Prasad Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 24-01-2025 Seen the office notes.

2. As per the office notes, Case Diary, Criminal Antecedent Report and Stage of Trial has not been received yet.

3. This is the 2nd attempt of the petitioner. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 04.04.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 23229 of 2024.

4. The petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered for the offence under Sections 307/504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

5. The following order was passed on 04.04.2024 in Cr. Misc. No. 23229 of 2024:- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. This application for grant of regular bail arises out of Lalganj P.S. Case No.274 of 2021 registered for the offence punishable under sections 307 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. While the criminals were fighting for

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75990 of 2024(3) dt.24-01-2025 2/2 division of the looted amount, the petitioner attacked upon the informant and the informant sustained injury on his thigh.

4. The petitioner is in custody since 19.09.2023.

5. From the F.I.R., it appears that the petitioner and the informant both were involved in dispute over looted amount.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of regular bail. Accordingly, this bail application is rejected. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as early as possible. If there is no substantial progress in the trial, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail.

6. No ground for review is made out. Since the case has already been committed to the Court of Sessions, the Trial Judge is directed to frame the charges and examine the witnesses at the earliest.

7. The SHO, Lalganj, Vaishali will see to it that the witnesses are produced in the trial on the dates fixed and the trial is not delayed because of the prosecution.

8. Accordingly, this application is again dismissed. If the trial is delayed, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail.

9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Superintendent of Police, Vaishali through FAX for its compliance forthwith.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) Shishir/- U T