Sanoj Kumar @ Sanoj Sahni v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.81582 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-52 Year-2021 Thana- PATEPUR District- Vaishali ====================================================== SANOJ KUMAR @ SANOJ SAHNI S/O FULO SAHANI VILLAGEPYAREPUR, PS. BALIGAON, DIST. VAISHALI ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Manish Chandra Gandhi, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Surendra Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 16-04-2024
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Patepur P.S. Case no.52 of 2021 registered under section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states that two persons each on two motorcycles dashed his motorcycle as a result of which the informant fell down from his motorcycle. It is further stated that the accused persons took away Rs.58,518/, biometric tab, I.D. card, various documents and other articles as mentioned in the FIR.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the FIR was registered against unknown. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case in course of investigation in the confessional statement of coaccused made before the police. Contrary to the allegations no incriminating article has been
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81582 of 2023(5) dt.16-04-2024 2/2 recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The alleged seizure list does not contain the petitioner's signature. He is in custody since 22.10.2022 and undertakes to cooperate in the trial.
5. A report was called for from the learned trial Court. As per the report received contained in letter dated 17.2.2024 of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Vaishali, out of the five prosecution witnesses, two witnesses have been examined.
6. Heard learned A.P.P. for the State.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegations in the F.I.R. together with the progress in the trial in the learned trial Court wherein two out of the five chargesheet witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.
8. Learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and to conclude the same at the earliest preferably within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order. (Partha Sarthy, J) Bibhash U