Ajay Majhi @ Ajay Manjhi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8584 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-37 Year-2020 Thana- SANGRAMPUR District- East Champaran ====================================================== Ajay Majhi @ Ajay Manjhi Son of Sukhal Manjhi @ Sukhal Majhi Resident of village - Mushahari Tola Mangalapur, P.S.- Sangrampur, District - East Champaran.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Nagina Prasad Kushwaha Son of Pajha Prasad Resident of village - Dekahan Bhawanipur, P.S.- Sangrampur, District - East Champaran. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Hemant Ray, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Raj Kishor Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 10-04-2026 Heard Mr. Hemant Ray, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Raj Kishor Singh, learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 08.11.2024 in connection with Sangrampur P.S. Case No. 37 of 2020, FIR dated 19.02.2020 registered for the offence under Section 363, 366(A), 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 20.06.2025 in Cr. Misc. No. 27433 of 2025.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent and he has

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8584 of 2026(3) dt.10-04-2026 2/3 falsely been implicated in this case and similarly situated coaccused person, namely, Vishwanath Pandit has been granted the privilege of bail by this Court vide order dated 26.04.2022 in Cr. Misc. No. 62187 of 2021 and the petitioner is rotting in judicial custody since 08.11.2024. He further submits that charge has been framed against the petitioner on 15.07.2025 and trial has not been concluded as yet.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that from bare perusal of the FIR it appears that victim has supported the case of the prosecution in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C/183 of BNSS and stated that petitioner has committed rape upon her and medical report of the victim also suggest that she has been sexually assaulted by the petitioner and other co-accused persons.

6. Vide order dated 25.02.2026 a report was called with regard to stage of the trial. Report of the learned Trial Court dated 04.04.2026 reveals that out of nine charge sheet witnesses, only three witnesses have been examined and the case is pending for examination of rest six witnesses.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as report of Trial Court and nature of allegation

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8584 of 2026(3) dt.10-04-2026 3/3 supported by medical evidence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Sangrampur P.S. Case No. 37 of 2020, pending in the Court of District & Additional Sessions Judge-1, East Champaran, Motihari.

8. Prayer is refused.

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