Sanjar @ Md. Sanjar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.46278 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-29 Year-2024 Thana- MAHALGAON District- Araria ====================================================== Sanjar @ Md. Sanjar son of Md. Sabir @ Sabir village- Kusaha, Ps- Kasba, Dist- Purnea ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Nand Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 02-09-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Mahalgaon P.S. Case No. 29 of 2024, instituted for the offences under Sections 364(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 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 13.11.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 57507 of 2024. 4.

In compliance of the order dated 07.07.2025, a report dated 16.07.2025 with regard to the present stage of trial has been received. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it appears that the case is fixed for prosecution evidence and as per Charge-sheet, altogether four witnesses are to be examined

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46278 of 2025(3) dt.02-09-2025 2/2 but no any witness has been examined in this case. It is further reported that summon has been issued to the witnesses and the case is likely to be concluded within nine months. 5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 17.05.2024 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 likely to be concluded within nine months.

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 five months from today. If the trial is not concluded within the period of five 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