Nandan Mandal v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.84815 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-79 Year-2023 Thana- BHARGAMA District- Araria ====================================================== Nandan Mandal Son of Late Akali Mandal Resident of village- Paikpar ward no 4 police station- Bhargama Dist- Araria ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr.Harendra Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 18-04-2025 Heard Mr.Ramesh Kumar Singh,learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Harendra Prasad, learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 01.03.2024 in connection with Bhargama P.S. Case No. 79 of 2023, corresponding to Session Case No.383 of 2024, F.I.R. dated 22.03.2023 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 341,323,302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Earlier the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 05.07.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No.34501 of 2024.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 01.03.2024 and the trial is not in progress and apart from that, the allegation as alleged in the FIR is not supported by the medical evidence.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84815 of 2024(4) dt.18-04-2025 2/2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that altogether four witnesses were examined in the present trial and none of the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution.

5. Vide order dated 26.03.2025, a report was called for with regard to the stage of the trial. Report of the learned Trial Court dated 09.04.2025 reveals that out of eight chargesheet witnesses, four witnesses have been examined and the case is pending for examination of rest of the prosecution witnesses.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts, trial is going on, apart from that, the bail petition of the petitioner was rejected earlier on merits and regarding allegation against the petitioner that he assaulted to the grandmother of the informant, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Bhargama P.S. Case No. 79 of 2023, corresponding to Session Case No.383 of 2024 pending in the court of learned District and Sessions Judge-IV, Araria.

7. Prayer is refused.

8. However, the learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same at the earliest. (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Nitesh/- U T