Ram Niranjan Kumar @ Mangal Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19104 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-606 Year-2024 Thana- LAKHISARAI District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== Ram Niranjan Kumar @ Mangal Singh S/o Lalan Singh @ Lalo Singh R/o Vill- Walipur, PS- Piparia, District- Lakhisarai ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Advocate Mr. Mayank Raj, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 03-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Lakhisarai P.S. Case No. 606 of 2024 instituted for the offences under Sections 103(1) & 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

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 29.07.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 46379 of 2025. 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 18.02.2025 without any rhymes or reason. Learned counsel for the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19104 of 2026(2) dt.03-04-2026 2/2 petitioner mainly submits that till date only charge is framed in this case and no witness has been examined. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no likelihood of the trial being concluded in the near future, hence, petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

5.

Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for grant of bail. It is fervently submitted that there is direct allegation of firing against the petitioner, which is mentioned in earlier rejection order, 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 six months from today. If the trial is not concluded within the period of six 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