Vikash Kumar @ Vikash Kumar Yadav @ Bikash Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38801 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-75 Year-2024 Thana- GOPALPUR District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== Vikash Kumar @ Vikash Kumar Yadav @ Bikash Yadav S/O AkhileshYadav Resident of Village- Gosaigaon, PS- Gopalpur, District- Bhagalpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Anil Kumar Singh No. 1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 12-09-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Gopalpur P.S. Case No. 75 of 2024, instituted for the offences under Sections 302 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 18.12.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 71481 of 2024. 4.

In compliance of the order dated 24.06.2025, a report dated 03.07.2025 with regard to the present stage of trial has been received. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it appears that three witnesses have been examined in this case

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38801 of 2025(4) dt.12-09-2025 2/2 and nine witnesses including doctor and I.O. are yet to be examined. It is further reported that the trial is likely to be concluded within a period of nine months.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 17.03.2024 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 and is at an advance stage. 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 six months from today. If the trial is not concluded within the period of six 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