Atul Mishra v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40866 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-50 Year-2023 Thana- JALE District- Darbhanga ====================================================== Atul Mishra S/o Pravesh Mishra @ Raviranjan Mishra R/o Village- Bihari Ward No. 04, P.S.- Jale, District- Darbhanga, Bihar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey, A.P.P ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 08-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Jale P.S. Case No. 50 of 2023 lodged on 29.04.2023, for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 307 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate 1st, Darbhanga.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the regular bail application of the petitioner has earlier been rejected vide order dated 06.12.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 76125 of 2024. Counsel submits that no progress has taken place in the trial and petitioner is in custody since 06.08.2024. He submits that on earlier occasion, report with regard to the present stage of trial has been called for.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40866 of 2025(3) dt.08-08-2025 2/2

4. Learned counsel appearing for the informant vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that in the earlier rejection order, it has been acknowledged that it is the petitioner who has made repeated dagger blow on the body of the informant's son due to which, he died. Counsel submits that the allegation made in the FIR, the injury observed in the inquest report and post-mortem report, are corroborative and there is a direct allegation against the petitioner.

5. 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 the cognizance has been taken and the commitment has been made in this case.

6. 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.

7. The Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial. (Dr. Anshuman, J) Divyansh/- U