Patna High CourtCR. MISC./82587/2025bail rejected

Vicky Kumar @ Vicky Ravidas v. The State Of Bihar

2026-01-09Mr. Justice R. P. Mishra2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.82587 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-196 Year-2023 Thana- SARE District- Nalanda ====================================================== Vicky Kumar @ Vicky Ravidas s/o Ravo Ravidas @ Rabo Mochi R/o - Gilani, P.S - Sare, District - Nalanda ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr.Anil Kumar, A.P.P.

====================================================== 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 Sare P.S. Case No. 196 of 2023, instituted for the offences under Sections 302, 201, 120B 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 on merit by this Court vide order dated 10.04.2025 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 90124 of 2024, taking into account the direct allegation against the petitioner which is confessed by the petitioner in his confessional statement.

4. In compliance of the order dated 28.11.2025, a report dated 18.12.2025 with regard to the present stage of trial

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82587 of 2025(3) dt.09-01-2026 2/2 has been received. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it appears that charge has been framed on 15.07.2025. It is further reported that out of nine witnesses only three witnesses have been produced and further requested for six months time.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 21.07.2024 without any rhymes or reason.

6. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for grant of bail.

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 three months from today. If the trial is not concluded within the period of three months, as stated above, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer before the learned Court below.

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