Patna High CourtCR. MISC./8538/2026bail rejected

Santu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2026-04-03Mr. Justice R. P. Mishra2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8538 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-395 Year-2024 Thana- KONCH District- Gaya ====================================================== Santu Kumar S/O Ram Krit yadav R/O Vill.- Mok, P.S.- Konch, Dist.- Gaya. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate Mr.Purushottam Kumar, Advocate Ms.Somali Acharya, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Dr.Mrityunjaya Kr.Gautam, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 03-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Konch P.S. Case No. 395 of 2024, instituted for the offences under Section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. Earlier vide order dated 05.05.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 5711 of 2025, regular bail of the petitioner was rejected by this Court considering the direct allegation of rape against the petitioner with direction to the learned trial Court to expedite the trial as expeditiously as possible without any undue delay and unnecessary adjournments.

4. In compliance of the order dated 04.02.2026 a report dated 07.03.2026 with regard to the present stage of trial has

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8538 of 2026(3) dt.03-04-2026 2/2 been received. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it appears that the case is pending for evidence and out of seven witnesses only one witness has been examined. It is further reported that the trial of the case would be concluded within six months.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 20.09.2024 without any rhymes or reason.

6. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for grant of bail.

7. There is no fresh ground to consider the bail petition of the petitioner.

8. In view of the above, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is again rejected with a direction to the court below to expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of five months from today. If the trial is not concluded within the period of five months, as stated above, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer before the court below.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) manish/- U T