Shipu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
This judgment came from a scanned document and its text layer is unreliable — words may be garbled. Check the original PDF before relying on any passage.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.61494 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-313 Year-2019 Thana- RAJIVNAGAR District- Patna ====================================================== SHIPU KUMAR S/O SRI NIRMAL CHOUDHARY Permanent AddressDahiyawan Brahman Toli, Behind of Siya Maszid, P.S.- Town, Distt.- Saran, Present Address- Kurji Balu Par, Vikash Nagar, Renter in Krishna Singh House, P.S.- Digha, Distt.- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Nityanand Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Rajesh Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 22-12-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
The petitioner is accused in connection with Sessions Trial No. 1054 of 2019 arsing out of Rajiv Nagar P.S. Case No. 313 of 2019 registered under sections 395 and 397 of the I.P.C.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that earlier prayer of the petitioner for bail was rejected twice of this Court vide Cr. Misc. No. 12421 of 2020 on 17.03.2021 and Cr. Misc. No. 12421 of 2020 on 29.02.2020. Further he submits that charge has already been framed on 09.12.2021. Petitioner is in custody since 01.07.2019.
Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61494 of 2021(4) dt.22-12-2021 2/2 opposed the prayer of the petitioner by contending that prayer of the petitioner for grant of regular bail was twice rejected by this Court on merit vide Cr. Misc. No. 12421 of 2020 and Cr. Misc. No.4191 of 2021.
On perusal of report of the trial court, at Flag 'R', it appears that the progress of the trial has been hampered due to non-appearance of the co-accused persons.
Having considered the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioner for bail. Accordingly, prayer of the petitioner is rejected.
Petitioner is directed to renew his prayer for bail after six months from the date of framing of charge. (Arvind Srivastava, J) shailendra/- U T