Patna High CourtCR. MISC./5542/2024bail rejected

Raja @ Rajwa @ Sunil Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2024-03-13Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5542 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-745 Year-2019 Thana- SASARAM NAGAR District- Rohtas ====================================================== Raja @ Rajwa @ Sunil Kumar S/O Late Rajendra Singh Resident of VILLAGE- AMARA TALAB, PS. SASARAM, DIST. ROHTAS AT SASARAM.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajani Kant Pandey, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Pawan Kumar Chaurasia, APP For the Informant : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey no.5, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 13-03-2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has renewed his prayer for regular bail in connection with Sasaram Nagar P.S. Case no.745 of 2019 registered under sections 302, 379 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. The earlier prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 30.6.2021 passed in Cr. Misc. no. 5169 of 2021 and again vide order dated 31.8.2022 passed in Cr. Misc. no.38026 of 2022.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that inspite of the petitioner having remained in custody since 19.9.2019, the trial has still not concluded.

5. The application for bail is opposed by learned

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5542 of 2024(3) dt.13-03-2024 2/2 A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant.

6. A report was called for from the learned trial Court. As per the report received contained in letter dated 20.2.2024 of the 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram, the prosecution evidence has been closed on 18.8.2023 and the statement under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded on 12.9.2023. It is further stated that two defence witnesses were examined and the accused in custody sought further time to produce defence witnesses.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegation of the son of the informant having stated that the four named accused persons including the petitioner herein had shot him together with the progress in the trial in the learned trial Court wherein the prosecution evidence was closed on 18.8.2023 itself, 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 within a period of three months from the date of closure of the defence witness.

(Partha Sarthy, J) Saurabh/- U T