Shivaji Pandit @ Shivjee Pandit v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13009 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-376 Year-2023 Thana- CHIRAIYA District- East Champaran ====================================================== Shivaji Pandit @ Shivjee Pandit S/O Late Gagan Pandit R/O Village- Ramban Banuhara, P.S- Shyampur Bhatahan, Distt.- Sheohar. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

X S/O Y R/O Village- Semara Sagardina, P.S- Chiriya, Dist.- East Champaran.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Dhannjay Kumar II, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Humayou Ahmad Khan, Advocate For the OP No.2 :

Mr. Dhurendra Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 01-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Chiriya P.S. Case No. 376 of 2023 arising out of P. Tr. No. 151 of 2024 instituted for the offences under Sections 365, 366A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the POCSO Act.

3. Earlier, vide order dated 19.02.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 83357 of 2024, regular bail of the petitioner was rejected by this Court considering the direct allegation of enticing the victim and forcibly performing marriage against the petitioner.

4. In compliance of the order dated 25.02.2026 a report

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13009 of 2026(4) dt.01-05-2026 2/2 dated 28.03.2026 with regard to the present stage of trial has been received. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it appears that five prosecution witnesses have been examined. It is further reported that trial is likely to be concluded in six months.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 22.09.2024 without any rhymes or reason.

6. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for grant of bail.

7. There is no fresh ground to consider the bail petition of the petitioner. From the aforesaid report, it appears that the trial is going on and is at an advance stage.

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 two months from today. If the trial is not concluded within the period of two months, as stated above, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer before the court below.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Alok Verma/- U T