Karan Kumar @ Karan Sah v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9467 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-469 Year-2024 Thana- SAHEBGANJ District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Karan Kumar @ Karan Sah S/o Arjun Sah R/o Village - Husaini, P.S - Dumaria, District - East Champaran (Motihari) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Prasoon Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Damodar Prasad Tiwary, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 11-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sahebganj P.S. Case No. 469 of 2024, instituted for the offences under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3.

This is the second attempt of the petitioner for bail. The petitioner has renewed his prayer for grant of regular bail which was earlier rejected by this Court vide order dated 11.07.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 32986 of 2025 taking into consideration the direct allegation of assaulting the deceased by means of knife.

4.

In compliance of the order dated 06.02.2026, a report dated 13.02.2026 with regard to the present stage of trial has been received. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9467 of 2026(3) dt.11-03-2026 2/2 appears that charge has been framed against the petitioner on 21.08.2025 and no any witness has been examined in this case. It is further reported that the trial is likely to be concluded within a period of six months.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 16.09.2024 without any rhymes or reason and has got no criminal antecedent.

6.

Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. 7.

There is no new ground to consider the bail petition of the petitioner. From the aforesaid report, it appears that the trial is going on.

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 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) Rajorshi/- U T