Patna High CourtCR. MISC./11805/2026bail rejected

Mukul Kumar @ Subham 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.11805 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-360 Year-2024 Thana- RANIYATALAB District- Patna ====================================================== Mukul Kumar @ Subham Kumar S/O Ashok Kumar @ Ashok Kumar Singh Resident of Village-Gorhna, Police Station- Neura, District-Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Dr.Mrityunjaya Kr.Gautam, APP ====================================================== 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 Ranitalab P.S. Case No. 360 of 2024 instituted for the offences under Sections 281, 125, 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. Earlier vide order dated 28.07.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 22434 of 2025 regular bail of the petitioner was rejected by this Court considering the specific allegation against the petitioner.

4. In compliance of the order dated 13.02.2026 a report dated 21.02.2026 with regard to the present stage of trial has been received. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it appears that there are altogether seven witnesses but none of them have

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11805 of 2026(3) dt.03-04-2026 2/2 been examined. It is further reported that trial is likely to be concluded in nine months.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 17.09.2024 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 four months from today. If the trial is not concluded within the period of four months, as stated above, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer before the court below.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Alok Verma/- U T