Ranjeet Kumar Singh @ Ranjeet Singh @ Ranjit Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.55042 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-780 Year-2023 Thana- MOTIHARI TOWN District- East Champaran ====================================================== Ranjeet Kumar Singh @ Ranjeet Singh @ Ranjit Singh S/o Uma Shankar Singh R/o Village- Jamla (Jamala), Ward No. 06, P.S.- Motihari Muffasil, District- Motihari ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Braj Kishore Pd., APP For the Informant :

Mr. Madhurendra Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 22-09-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant. 2.

The petitioner seeks bail in Motihari Town P.S. Case No. 780 of 2023, instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 34, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 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 by this Court vide order dated 26.10.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 44777 of 2024, taking into account the nature and gravity of the offence. 4.

In compliance of the order dated 08.08.2025, a report dated 15.09.2025 with regard to the present stage of trial has been received. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55042 of 2025(3) dt.22-09-2025 2/2 appears that all the charge-sheeted witnesses including the informant and I.O have already been examined. Now, the Director of R.F.S.L. Muzaffarpur remains to be examined for which summon has already been issued. It is further reported that the trial is likely to be concluded within a period of 4-6 months.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 26.12.2023 without any rhymes or reason and has got no criminal antecedent.

6.

Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant have 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 at an advance stage. 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. (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Rajorshi/- U T