Lalan Singh @ Lala @ Lalan Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4429 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-83 Year-2024 Thana- KAJRA District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== Lalan Singh @ Lala @ Lalan Kumar Singh S/o- Kapildev Singh @ Kapildeo Prasad Singh R/v- Pokhrama, Pokhra Wan Ps- Kajra Dist- Lakhisarai ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Hansraj, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Umeshanand Pandit, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Shashi Saurabh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 28-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State as also learned counsel for the informant. 2.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Kajra P.S. Case No. 83 of 2024 instituted for the offences under Sections 103(1) & 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3.

This is the second attempt of the petitioner for bail. The petitioner has renewed his prayer for grant of regular bail which was earlier rejected on merit by this Court vide order dated 08.05.2025, passed in Cr. Misc. no. 7469 of 2025, taking into account the ample material against the petitioner supported by the medical evidence as also the nature and gravity of the offence.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4429 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026 2/2 petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 24.09.2024 without any rhymes or reason, having one criminal antecedent. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly submits that there is no likelihood of the trial being concluded in the near future, hence, petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

6.

Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the Informant opposes the prayer for grant of bail. Learned counsel for the informant submits that only two witnesses are yet to be examined and trial is on the verge of its conclusion, hence, petitioner does not deserve the privilege of bail. 7.

There is no new ground to consider the bail petition of the petitioner, which is already decided by this Court on merit.

8.

In view of the above, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is again rejected with a direction to the court below to expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from today. If the trial is not concluded within the period of three months, as stated above, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer before the court below.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Raj Kishore/- U T