Kundan Kumar @ Kundan @ Gore v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35715 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-732 Year-2023 Thana- PATLIPUTRA District- Patna ====================================================== Kundan Kumar @ Kundan @ Gore S/o Late Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Kumar Paswan Mohalla- Mainpura, Sidheshwar Nagar, PS- Patliputra ,District- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Akhauri Kamal Kishore Sahay, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Uday Pratap Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 30-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Patliputra P.S. Case No. 732 of 2023, 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 by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.09.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 64897 of 2024 taking into consideration the nature of allegation. 4.

In compliance of the order dated 14.11.2025, a report dated 21.11.2025 with regard to the present stage of trial has been received. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35715 of 2025(8) dt.30-01-2026 2/2 appears that charge has been framed against the petitioner on 21.10.2024 and summons to the witnesses have been issued. Out of seven charge-sheeted witnesses, only two witnesses have been examined in this case. It is further reported that the trial is likely to be concluded within three months.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 03.02.2024 without any rhymes or reason and has got no criminal antecedent.

6.

Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. 7.

There is no new ground to consider the bail petition of the petitioner. From the aforesaid report, it appears that the trial is going on.

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. If the trial is not concluded within the period of three 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