IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4360 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-73 Year-2023 Thana- PUNAURA District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== 1. Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Mahto S/O Rajendra Mahto R/v Janki Asthan, Purani Math, Ward No.- 08, P.s- Sitamarhi, Dist.- Sitamarhi 2. Rama Shankar Kumar @ Rama S/O Late Lakshmi Mahto R/v Janki Asthan, Purani Math, Ward No.- 08, P.s- Sitamarhi, Dist.- Sitamarhi .. ... Appellant/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Neha Devi W/O Late Chintu Raut R/v Janki Asthan, Purani Math, Ward No.- 08, P.s- Sitamarhi, Dist.- Sitamarhi ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna, SPP For the Informant : Ms. Divya Bharti, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 5 18-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the informant and learned SPP for the State. 2. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 21.06.2025 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sitamarhi whereby the prayer for bail of the appellants in connection with Punaura P.S. Case No. 73 of 2023 under Sections 302, 120B, 201, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act was rejected. 3. Earlier vide order dated 01.02.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 4589 of 2023, regular bail of the appellants was rejected by this Court on merit. Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4360 of 2025(5) dt.18-03-2026 2/2 4. In compliance of the order dated 09.01.2026, a report dated 20.01.2026 with regard to the non-conclusion of the trial has been received and the same is accepted. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are languishing in judicial custody since 25.03.2023, i.e. more than two and a half years without any rhymes or reason. 6. Learned SPP for the State and learned counsel for the informant oppose the prayer for grant of bail. 7. There is no fresh ground to consider the bail petition of the appellants. 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 appellants 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. If the trial is not concluded within the period of one month, as stated above, the appellants will be at liberty to renew their prayer before the court below. Alok Verma/- (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) U T