Sukhdeo Mandal @ Sugdeo Mndal @ Sukhdev Mandal @ Sugdev Mandal v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1823 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-48 Year-2001 Thana- SONO District- Jamui ====================================================== Sukhdeo Mandal @ Sugdeo Mndal @ Sukhdev Mandal @ Sugdev Mandal S/O Late Khurughdhari Mandal @ Murari Mandal R/O Village- Gadi, P.SChakai (Chihra), Distt.- Jamui. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Rana Hason, Advocate For the Opposite Party :

Mr. Shailendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 12-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2.

This is the second attempt on behalf of the petitioner for grant of regular bail in connection with Sono P.S. Case No.48 of 2001 registered for the offence under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3.

Earlier, the bail application of the petitioner was rejected by this Court vide orders dated 12.05.2025 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.17752 of 2025. The aforesaid order dated 12.05.2025 reads as under:- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Sono (Charkapathar) P.S.

Case No. 48 of 2001 registered for the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1823 of 2026(2) dt.12-02-2026 2/2 Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner is named in the FIR as a suspect.

4. The petitioner has surrendered on 13.12.2024 in a case registered in the year 2001 and he appears to be an absconder.

5. Considering the fact that the petitioner is an absconder, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

6.Accordingly, this application is dismissed."

4.

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that out of nine witnesses, six witnesses have been examined in the trial.

5.

Considering the gravity of offence and fact that the trial is proceeding and also the law laid down down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of X vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported as 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3539, I am not inclined to review my earlier order. Accordingly, this bail application is dismissed.

6.

The trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same at the earliest.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) pawan/- U