Bullet Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37184 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-62 Year-2005 Thana- BARHIYA District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== Bullet Paswan S/o Late Vakil Paswan R/o Village- Kalyanpur, Dusadh Tola, P.S.- Barahia, District- Lakhisarai ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Ms. Ojaswee Kumari, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mrs. Sucheta Yadav, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 06-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Barahia P.S. Case No. 62 of 2005, instituted for the offences under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code 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 15.03.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 75332 of 2023. 4.

In compliance of the order dated 20.06.2025, a report dated 28.06.2025 with regard to the present stage of trial has been received. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it appears that Charge has been framed against the petitioner on

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37184 of 2025(3) dt.06-08-2025 2/2 06.02.2024 and there are 08 charge-sheeted witnesses but none of the witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. It is further reported that the trial is likely to be concluded within one year..

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 02.06.2023 without any rhymes or reason.

6.

Learned APP for the State opposes 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 Charge has been framed against the petitioner and the trial is likely to be concluded within one year.

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

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