Govind Thakur v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.86575 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-526 Year-2024 Thana- HAJIPUR SADAR District- Vaishali ====================================================== Govind Thakur Son of Ravindra Thakur Resident of Village - Saidpur Laguniya, P.S.- Patori, District - Samastipur. At present Resident of Mohalla - Nandlal Nagar, Dighi Kala East, Hajipur, P.S.- Hajipur Sadar, District - Vaishali ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.P.N. Shahi, Sr. Advocate Mr.Surendra Kishore Thakur, Advocate For the State :

Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhyaya, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Manish Chandra Gandhi, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 05-05-2026 Heard the parties.

2. This is the second attempt of the petitioner for grant of regular bail in connection with Hajipur Sadar P.S. Case No. 526 of 2024 registered for the offence under Sections 80(2), 3(5) of B.N.S. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 05.05.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 26782 of 2025.

3. As per the prosecution case, petitioner along with others is alleged to have killed the deceased. 4 It has been submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 30.07.2024 but the trial has not been committed recently and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86575 of 2025(3) dt.05-05-2026 2/2 charges have been framed and the petitioner being in custody has no role in the delay. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that except for the ligature mark, there is no injury found on the body of the deceased and a suicide note was also found on the spot.

5. Learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.P.P. for the State have jointly opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner. Mr. Manish Chandra Gandhi, learned counsel for the informant has relied on paragraph '5' of the counter affidavit and has submitted that the mother of the petitioner, Kiran Devi has delayed the trial for eight months on one ground or another.

6. Considering the fact that the charges have been framed and the trial has been delayed by the mother of the petitioner, this Court finds no ground to review its earlier order.

7. Accordingly, this application is dismissed again with the liberty to the petitioner that if the trial is still delayed by the prosecution, he may renew his prayer for bail. (Sandeep Kumar, J) tusharika/- U T