Rohit Kumar Soni @ Rohit Kumar v. The Central Bureau Of Investigation Through Superintendent Of Police C.B.I. New Delhi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4423 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-11 Year-2016 Thana- C.B.I CASE District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Rohit Kumar Soni @ Rohit Kumar Son of Raj Kumar Prasad Resident of Village -Naya Kila, Patwa Toli, P.S.- Siwan Town, District - Siwan. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The Central Bureau Of Investigation Through Superintendent Of Police C.B.I. New Delhi Bihar 2.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ravi Ranjan, Advocate For the State :

Mr.Ram Anurag Singh, APP For the CBI :

Mr. Bipin Kumar Sinha, SC ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 22-12-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the CBI. In this case, the petitioner is seeking bail in connection with Sessions Trial No. 700 of 2017/170 of 2017 corresponding to R.C. 11 (S) of 2016 arising out of Siwan Town P.S. Case No.362 of 2016, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 120 (B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

Allegation has been made in the FIR that husband of the informant, who was Journalist of Hindustan, received a call and proceeded and reached near the fruits market where some professional criminals fired on his head, neck and abdomen, which resulted in death of her husband on the spot. During investigation, it transpired that this action has been taken at the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4423 of 2020(6) dt.22-12-2020 2/2 instance of Former M.P. as he was bringing all facts relating to the former MP and for that he received threatening from the former MP, who is still under judicial custody at Tihar jail and name of the petitioner has come being associate of the former MP.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that already seventeen witnesses have been examined and still large number of witnesses are to be examined.

Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is rejected. However, the court below is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within a period of three years.

As the counsel for the petitioner submits that he is ill, that will be verified by the Presiding Officer concerned and if it is found that he requires medical treatment, he make necessary arrangement for his treatment inside the jail. With this observations, this petition is dismissed. (Shivaji Pandey, J) V.K.Pandey/- U T