Sanjay Mandal v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69032 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-193 Year-2024 Thana- NATHNAGAR District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== Sanjay Mandal S/o Girish Mandal R/o - Amri Bishanpur, P.S - Bihpur, District - Bhagalpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajive Ranjan Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Bishweshwar Ram, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 14-11-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Nathnagar P.S. Case No. 193 of 2024, instituted for the offences under Sections 302/34 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 12.05.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 11948 of 2025 considering the stage of trial, nature of accusation and gravity of the offence. 4.

In compliance of the order dated 22.09.2025, a report dated 07.10.2025 with regard to the present stage of trial

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69032 of 2025(3) dt.14-11-2025 2/2 has been received. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it appears that six prosecution witnesses have already been examined out of seven prosecution witnesses as named in the charge-sheet. It is further reported that the 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 06.06.2024 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 and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of one month from today. (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Rajorshi/- U T