Nag Mani Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.75992 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-19 Year-2024 Thana- KHODAWANDPUR District- Begusarai ====================================================== Nag Mani Mahto Son of Late Jay Prakash Mahto @ Late Jay Parkash Mahto Resident of Village - Kumbhi Patolia Dera, Police Station - Cheriya Bariyarpur, District - Begusarai.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Bijay Bhushan Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Raj Kishor Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 09-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Khodawandpur P.S. Case No. 19 of 2024 instituted for the offences under Sections 302, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Sections 25(1-B)(a) and 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 05.03.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 85036 of 2024 on account of being enough material against the petitioner and specifically taking into account the thirty-three (33) criminal antecedents of the petitioner.

4.

In compliance of the order dated 11.11.2025, a report dated 18.11.2025 with regard to the present stage of trial

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75992 of 2025(3) dt.09-01-2026 2/2 has been received. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it appears that the present case is running for prosecution evidence (documentary) and all the witnesses mentioned in the chargesheet of the case have been examined. It is further reported that the trial is likely to be concluded within 3-4 months and the case is fixed for evidence.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 08.04.2024 without any rhymes or reason.

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 two months from today. (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Rajorshi/- U T