Ranjan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.53365 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-319 Year-2019 Thana- PAROO District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Ranjan Kumar S/o Chandeshwar Mahto Resident Of Village- Kataru, PSParoo, District- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Chanda Devi W/o Lalan Mahto Resident Of Village- Kataru, Post- Chhap, PS- Paroo, District- Muzaffarpur ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Raju Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Dr. Ajeet Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 18-09-2025 Heard Mr. Raju Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dr. Ajeet Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 18.04.2022, in connection with Paroo P.S. Case No. 319 of 2019, FIR dated 09.08.2019 registered for the offence under Sections 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3,4 and 8 of POCSO Act.
3. Earlier the regular bail application of the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 22.09.2022 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 34482 of 2022.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that the petitioner is rotting in judicial custody since 18.04.2022 and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53365 of 2025(3) dt.18-09-2025 2/2 trial has not concluded as yet.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
6. Vide order dated 01.08.2025, a report was called with regard to stage of the trial. Report of the learned Trial Court dated 08.08.2025 reveals that the record was running for argument, in the meantime a petition was filed for reexamination of DNA on the behalf of informant, which has been allowed vide order dated 05.03.2025.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the report of the trial Court, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Paroo P.S. Case No. 319 of 2019 pending in the Court of Special Judge, POCSO court No.-01, Muzaffarpur.
8. Prayer is refused.
9. However the learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same at the earliest. (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Suruchi/- U T