Bikku Pandit @ Bikku Kumar Pandit v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.50229 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-151 Year-2024 Thana- WARISNAGAR District- Samastipur ====================================================== Bikku Pandit @ Bikku Kumar Pandit S/o Anil Pandit @ Anil Kumar R/o Village- Satmalpur, P.S- Warisnagar, Ward No.4, Dist- Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Murli Dhar., APP For the Informant :
Mr. Bijay Bhushan Prasad, Advocate :
Ms. Rani Shashi Bharti, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 25-07-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Warisnagar P.S. Case No. 151 of 2024 instituted for the offences under Sections 498A, 304B, 34 the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. Earlier vide order dated 20.12.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 81526 of 2024 the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner was rejected with liberty to the petitioner to renew his
2/4 prayer for bail after framing of charges.
4. Prosecution case, in short, is that the petitioner along with other co-accused persons killed the daughter of the informant due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly submitted that the petitioner has been languishing in jail since 02.07.2024 and there is no significant progress in the trial. Learned counsel further submitted that this is the second attempt of the petitioner for grant of bail in light of the liberty given by this Court to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charges. He further submitted that charges have already been framed against the petitioner. He further submitted that and there is no likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future and therefore, petitioner may be released on bail. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent.
6. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the informant further submitted that trial is already in progress and four prosecution witnesses have already been examined. Learned counsel for the informant further relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3539 (X. vs. State of
3/4 Rajasthan & Anr.), wherein in paragraph no. 14, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held has under:
"14. Ordinarily in serious offences like rape, murder, dacoity, etc., once the trial commences and the prosecution starts examining its witnesses, the Court, be it the Trial Court or the High Court should be loath in entertaining the bail application of the accused."
7. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties, this Court finds no fresh ground to reconsider the matter which has already been decided on merit by this Court as also taking into account the present stage of trial, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner is, hereby, rejected.
9. Learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial without any undue delay and unnecessary adjournment.
10. The District Magistrate, Samastipur and the Superintendent of Police, Samastipur are also directed to produce the witnesses before the learned Trial Court as and when required for expeditious conclusion of trial.
11. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
4/4 District Magistrate, Samastipur and the Superintendent of Police, Samastipur.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Alok Verma/- U T