Sumit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.54942 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-706 Year-2019 Thana- AHIYAPUR District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Sumit Kumar, S/o Late Shankar Sah, R/o Village - Chakgaji, P.S.- Ahiyapur, District - Muzaffarpur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Mukesh Kumar Jha, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Mithlesh Kumar Khare, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH ORAL ORDER 29-08-2025 Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Ahiyapur P.S. Case No. 706 of 2019 dated 13.06.2019 registered for the offences punishable under sections 394 and 307 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and section 27 of the Arms Act. Later on, section 302 of the IPC was also added.

2. As per the prosecution story, three unknown criminals are alleged to have shot at Ranjan Kumar Srivastava, an employee of Bandhan Bank, in course of committing loot.

3. Heard Mr. Mukesh Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Mithlesh Kumar Khare, learned APP appearing for the State and perused the FIR as well as the trial court's order.

4. Petitioner's prayer for the same relief as sought in the present petition has already been rejected by this Bench on merit vide order dated 17.01.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 87114/2024

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54942 of 2025(3) dt.29-08-2025 2/2 and the petitioner has renewed his bail prayer mainly on the ground of his custody period as well as no significant progress in his trial as out of ten chargesheet witnesses, only two witnesses have been examined till now. However, considering the seriousness of the allegation appearing against this petitioner and mainly his criminal antecedents of fifteen cases as detailed in the petition, this Court is not persuaded to take a lenient approach towards the prayer of the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer stands rejected.

5. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the petitioner and conclude the same at the earliest and give at least two block dates every month in the trial of the petitioner till the examination of non-official witnesses of the prosecution.

6. The Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur is directed to ensure the production of non-official witnesses of the prosecution on each and every date as fixed by the trial court.

7. The petitioner may renew his bail prayer after the examination of all non-official witnesses.

(Shailendra Singh, J) annu/- U T