In Anuj Yadav Devi vs. The State Of Bihar (2025), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices M. M. Sundresh and N. K. Singh passed an order dated August 8, 2025. It reads:'A letter has been received from Additional Sessions Judge – II, Khagaria, Bihar forwarded by High Court of Patna, requesting therein to extend the time for six months to dispose of the trial. As prayed for, the time for disposal of the trial is extended by six months. The Miscellaneous Application stands allowed.' The case was taken up by Courts Motion.
Prior to this in its order dated December 13, 2024, Court's Division Bench of Justices M. M. Sundresh and Aravind Kumar had passed an order which reads: 'We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. However, taking into consideration the fact that the trial has already begun, we request the Trial court to expedite the hearing and conclude the same within a period of six months from today. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.' This SLP arose out of impugned final judgment and order dated December 8, 2023 passed by Justice Mohit Kumar Shah of Patna High Court.
In Anuj Yadav Devi vs. The State Of Bihar (2023), Justice Shah had passed a 3-page long order dated December 8, 2023. The order reads: 'The present petition is by way of second attempt at the behest of the petitioner for grant of regular bail in connection with Khagaria (Mufassil) P.S. Case No.206 of 2018, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307, 448 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, inasmuch as the earlier prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail was rejected by this Court by an order dated 17.01.2023, passed in Cr.Misc.No. 60192 of 2022.' The case of the prosecution, was that on April 4, 2018 at about 5 pm, the petitioner and other co-accused persons had arrived at the house of the informant, snatched ornaments and had taken away the mare and had also asked the informant to pay a sum of Rs.2 lakh for release of the mare. For the aforesaid incident, an FIR against the accused persons had been lodged by the mother of the informant on April 6, 2018. Again, on April 7, 2018, at about 6 am, while the brother of the petitioner was returning after attending the call of nature, the petitioner and other co-accused persons armed with rifle surrounded the brother of the informant and as far as the petitioner is concerned, he had fired with a rifle on the right eye of the brother of the informant resulting in his instantaneous death on the spot, whereafter other accused persons had also engaged in overt act.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was languishing in custody since May 12, 2022, but there was no progress in the ongoing trial, hence a sympathetic view be taken for the purposes of grant of regular bail to the petitioner.
Justice Shah's order reads: 'considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and taking into account the materials available on record this Court finds that not only the petitioner is the main assailant, who had fired gunshots on the brother of the informant, resulting in his instantaneous death, but there is also no change in the circumstances so as to warrant reconsideration of the prayer of the petitioner for grant of regular bail, thus I do not find any merit in the present petition, hence the same stands dismissed.'
