Ravi Thakur v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69212 of 2025 In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.55309 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-138 Year-2024 Thana- DHAMDAHA District- Purnia ====================================================== Ravi Thakur S/o Sri Shawetamber Thakur @ Madhav Thakur Resident of village. Raipur , P.S.- Akbarpur, District - Purnea ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Amit Verma, Advocate Mr. Arjun Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ram Naresh Ray, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 28-11-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Dhamadaha P.S. Case No. 138 of 2024, instituted for the offences under Sections 302, 201, 120(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

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 13.11.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 55309 of 2024 taking into consideration the gravity of offence and nature of allegation being corroborated by the post-mortem report. 4.

In compliance of the order dated 26.09.2025, a report dated 10.10.2025 with regard to the present stage of trial

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69212 of 2025(3) dt.28-11-2025 2/2 has been received. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it appears that out of thirteen charge-sheeted witnesses, only three witnesses have been examined. Bailable and non bailable warrant has also been issued on 07.08.2025 and 09.10.2025 for rest of the eleven witnesses. It is further reported that the trial is likely to be concluded within six months.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 10.06.2024 without any rhymes or reason and has got no criminal antecedent.

6.

Learned APP for the State has 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. If the trial is not concluded within the period of five months, as stated above, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer before the court below.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Rajorshi/- U T