Patna High CourtCR. MISC./5385/2024bail rejected

Sandeep Sahani @ Sandeep Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2024-03-20Mr. Justice Shailendra Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5385 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-350 Year-2022 Thana- SANGRAMPUR District- East Champaran ====================================================== SANDEEP SAHANI @ SANDEEP KUMAR Son of Arjun Sahani Resident of Village-Madhubani, P.S.-Sangrampur, District-East Champaran, Motihari ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sharda Nand Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Manoj Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH ORAL ORDER 20-03-2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.

2. Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Sangrampur P.S. Case No. 350 of 2022 dated 21.10.2022 registered for the offence(s) punishable under Section(s) 304B, 302, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Mr. Sharda Nand Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner earlier preferred Cr. Misc. No. 54705 of 2023 for the relief of regular bail which was rejected by this court vide order dated 30.08.2023 and thereafter the petitioner has again come before this court for the relief of bail mainly on the ground of his long incarceration period as well as no progress in his trial. He further submits that the petitioner has been languishing in jail since 19.06.2023 and there is no progress in his case and till

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5385 of 2024(3) dt.20-03-2024 2/2 date, charges have not been framed upon the petitioner and in fact, the informant's family member brought the dead body of the deceased and kept the body in the house of the petitioner in the night to falsely implicate the petitioner and his family members in the alleged crime.

4. Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the bail prayer of the petitioner.

5. Considering the seriousness of the accusation appearing against the petitioner, this court is not persuaded to take a lenient approach towards the petitioner's prayer. Accordingly, his second prayer also stands rejected.

6. However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the petitioner and take steps to frame the charges upon him at the earliest and thereafter conclude his trail in the next one year. If the petitioner's trial is not concluded within the said period of one year or no significant progress is made in his trial then he may renew his bail prayer.

(Shailendra Singh, J) Rajiv/- U T