Bikki Kumar Swarnkar @ Bikki Kumar @Vicky Kumar Swarnkar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27495 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-117 Year-2023 Thana- RAUTARA District- Katihar ====================================================== Bikki Kumar Swarnkar @ Bikki Kumar @Vicky Kumar Swarnkar Son of Nandlal Swarnkar @ Nadkisor Swarnkar village- Rautara, Ward no. 4, P.S. -Rautara, Dist. -Katihar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajendra Prasad Sah, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Umeshanand Pandit, A.P.P ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 01-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Sessions Trial No.197 of 2024 arising out of Rautara P.S. Case No.117 of 2023 lodged on 10.12.2023, for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 120(B) & 34 of the Indian Penal Code read, pending in the Court of D.A.S.J.-III, Katihar.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the regular bail application of the petitioner has earlier been rejected vide order dated 30.05.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 29790 of 2024 with liberty granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail nine months after framing of charge, if trial shall not be concluded. Counsel submits that charge has already been framed in this case on 14.06.2024 and more than one year has been

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27495 of 2025(3) dt.01-08-2025 2/2 lapsed after framing of charge. But, till date, trial has not been concluded. Counsel further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 11.12.2023, having clean antecedent.

4. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that on earlier occasion, report with regard to the present stage of the trial has been called for and from perusal of the said report, it transpires that out of 8 charge-sheet prosecution witnesses, 6 prosecution witnesses have been examined and the trial court has indicated that trial is likely to be concluded within eight months.

5. In this view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

(Dr. Anshuman, J) Divyansh/- U T