Kundan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44721 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-143 Year-2024 Thana- SARMERA District- Nalanda ====================================================== Kundan Kumar S/o Dinesh Das Resident of Village - Jagdishpur, PSJayrampur, Distt.- Sheikhpura ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sheo Jee Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 04-07-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sarmera P.S. Case No. 143 of 2024 instituted for the offence under Sections 103, 238, 61(2) & 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3.

Earlier, vide order dated 19-02-2025, passed in Cr. Misc. No. 82562 of 2024, regular bail of the petitioner was rejected on merit by this Court.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 16-07-2024, having no antecedent. It has been further submitted by the petitioner's counsel that petitioner has

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44721 of 2025(2) dt.04-07-2025 2/2 not been named in the FIR and co-accused, namely, Tripurary Kumar, is also not named in the FIR and he has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 11-04-2025, passed in Cr. Misc. No. 2284 of 2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner goes on to submit that there is no likelihood of the trial being concluded in the near future.

5.

Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner and it is contended that the case of the petitioner is on different footing, than that of co-accused, namely, Tripurary Kumar. 6.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, there being no fresh ground to reconsider the matter, which was already decided by this Court on merit, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner is once again rejected. 7.

However, petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail, if the trial is not concluded within a period of six months from today.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Raj Kishore/- U T