Badal Kumar @ Dhanush Kashyap v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30856 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-554 Year-2022 Thana- MUZAFFARPUR SADAR DistrictMuzaffarpur ====================================================== Badal Kumar @ Dhanush Kashyap S/o Santosh Singh R/o Village- Sain Pati, Ram Rai Tola, P.S.- Kanti, District- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ranjit Kumar Thakur, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Tarun Prasad Mandal, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 01-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No. 554 of 2022, lodged on 19.09.2022 under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code. Later on Sections 395 & 412 of the IPC were also added, pending before the Court of 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bail application of the petitioner was earlier rejected vide order dated 12.07.2024, passed in Cr. Misc. No. 4075 of 2024. He further submits that at the time of rejection of the bail application, this Court directed the Trial Court to conclude the trial within nine months from the date of the rejection order.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the period of nine months has already lapsed, but till date, the trial has not been concluded. He further submits that keeping the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30856 of 2025(3) dt.01-08-2025 2/2 petitioner in custody is unnecessary and shall not serve any purpose.

5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that, on the previous occasion, the present stage of the trial was called for, and from the said report, it transpires that out of 16 prosecution witnesses, only two have been examined till date, and summons have been issued to all the remaining witnesses.

6. From the earlier rejection order, it transpires to this Court that a plea was taken by the State that looted money and a country-made pistol were recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner is accused of bank dacoity, and there are four criminal cases pending against him. It further transpires to this Court from the said report that the trial of the case is likely to be concluded within six months.

7. In the present facts and circumstances of this case and the submissions made above, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Therefore, the bail application of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

(Dr. Anshuman, J.) Aman Kumar/- U T