Raju Ram @ Raj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21290 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-493 Year-2023 Thana- RAMGARH District- Kaimur (Bhabua) ====================================================== Raju Ram @ Raj Kumar Son of Sri Kawal Ram @ Kaval Ram Resident of village-Panjaron @ Panjraw PS -Nuaon @ Nouan, District- Kaimur at Bhabua ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shyam Bihari Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Shailendra Kumar, APP For the Informant :

Nagendra Kumar Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 22-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant. 2.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 493 of 2023, instituted for the offences under Sections 364, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and later on Sections 302, 201 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code was added.

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 13.05.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 21864 of 2024.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21290 of 2025(5) dt.22-08-2025 2/2 4.

In compliance of the order dated 03.07.2025, a report dated 29.07.2025 with regard to the present stage of trial has been received. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it appears that the statement of all the accused persons have been recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. on 22. 07.2025 It is further reported that the record is posted on 01.08.2025 for the defence evidence.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 02.01.2024 without any rhymes or reason and the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent.

6.

Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for grant of bail. 7.

There is no new 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.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Rajorshi/- U T