Mithilesh Kumar @ Mitthu Yadav @ Mithilesh Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.49804 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-141 Year-2024 Thana- ARIYARI District- Sheikhpura ====================================================== Mithilesh Kumar @ Mitthu Yadav @ Mithilesh Yadav S/o- Sanjay Yadav Village - Aacharyadih Ps - Sikandra, Dist- Jamui ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Brajesh Sahay, Advocate Ms. Rupa Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Bharat Bhushan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 19-09-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Ariyari P.S. Case No. 141 of 2024 instituted for the offences under Sections 394 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1b)a, 26 & 35 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 19-11-2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 65232 of 2024, taking into account nature of accusation and the gravity of the offence.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49804 of 2025(4) dt.19-09-2025 2/3 4.

In compliance of the order dated 01-08-2025, a report dated 06-08-2025 with regard to the present stage of trial has been received. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it appears that case is pending at the stage of defence evidence. It is further reported that trial is likely to be concluded within a period of one month .

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 26-06-2024 without any rhymes or reason. There is no likelihood of the trial being concluded in the near future, hence, petitioner deserves the privilege of bail.

6.

Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for grant of bail.

7.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, 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 on the verge of its conclusion. 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 two months from today. If the trial is not concluded within the period of two months, as stated

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49804 of 2025(4) dt.19-09-2025 3/3 above, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer before the court below.

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