Sintu Kumar @ Saltu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36022 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-404 Year-2023 Thana- SAUR BAZAR District- Saharsa ====================================================== Sintu Kumar @ Saltu Kumar S/O Late Vinay Kumar @ Late Vinay Prasad Yadav @ Late Vinay Yadav Resident of village-Morkahi ward no.03, P.S.- Sourbazar (Pastpar O.P.) District-Saharsa ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Pawan Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms.Nirmala Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 20-06-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. Perused the case diary.

2.The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sourbazar P.S. Case No. 404 of 2023 instituted for the offence under Sections 302, 506, 34, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3.The accusation against the accused persons including the present petitioner is of firing on the chest of the Informant due to which he sustained grievous gun-shot injury. Thereafter, he was taken to Medical College, Madhepura for treatment where in course of treatment, he died.

4. The petitioner has renewed his prayer for grant of bail which was earlier rejected by this Court on merit vide order dated 27.09.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 50199 of 2024.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36022 of 2025(2) dt.20-06-2025 2/2

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 16-03-2024. He further submits that though cognizance has been taken by the learned court below but, at present, the court is vacant and, there is no likelihood of the completion of trial in near future. Petitioner is a man of clean antecedent.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds that there is no new ground to consider the bail application of the petitioner. This Court has already rejected the prayer for bail of the petitioner on merit.

7. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is again rejected with a direction to the learned court below to expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from today without any undue delay and unnecessary adjournment.

8. Learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Saharsa is also directed to transfer the case of the petitioner to any other running court in case the court, where the petitioner's case is pending, is found to be vacant.

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