Sikendra Sah @ Sikendar Sah @ Sikandra Sah @ Sikandar Sah v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.83577 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-103 Year-2014 Thana- CHAUTHAM District- Khagaria ====================================================== SIKENDRA SAH @ SIKENDAR SAH @ SIKANDRA SAH @ SIKANDAR SAH, Son of Asarfi Sah, Resident of Village - Mohra Paras, P.S.- Alouli, Distt - Khagaria.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ajay Kumar Pandey, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Uday Chand Prasad (APP) For the Informant :

Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL ORDER 12-06-2020 The proceedings of the Court are being conducted through Video Conferencing and the Advocates joined the proceedings through Video Conferencing from their residence. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner, who is in custody, seeks bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 342, 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

Informant has stated that on 10.08.2014 petitioner along with other co-accused armed with deadly weapons came there on three motorcycle and petitioner fired a shot from close range at her husband as a result of which her husband died and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83577 of 2019(3) dt.12-06-2020 2/2 all the miscreants fled away.

Petitioner has earlier moved this Court for bail vide Cr. Misc. No. 39164 of 2018 which was rejected on 28.08.2018 with a direction to the trial court to expedite the trial and conclude the same within a period of one year but trial has not been concluded as yet. Petitioner is in custody since 09.12.2017. Learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstance of the case and also there being direct allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. From the order passed by the trial court, it appears that trial court has requested extension of time for conclusion of trial, accordingly, trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within one year from the date of receipt/production of a copy of order passed by this Court. (S. Kumar, J) veena/rajiv U T