Patna High CourtCR. MISC./15086/2026bail rejected

Rupesh Mehta @ Rupesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2026-03-18Mr. Justice R. P. Mishra2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15086 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-197 Year-2023 Thana- RAGHOPUR District- Supaul ====================================================== Rupesh Mehta @ Rupesh Kumar Son of Rameshwar Mehta Resident of village- Satan Patti, Ps- Ratanpura, Dist- Supaul. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr.Umeshanand Pandit, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 18-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with S.Tr. No. 453 of 2023, arising out of Raghopur P.S. Case No. 197 of 2023, instituted for the offences under Sections 307, 302 and 394/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. Earlier vide order dated 16.01.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 81511 of 2023, regular bail of the petitioner was rejected by this Court considering the nature of allegation with a direction to the learned trial Court to expedite the trial and conclude the same as soon as possible.

4. In compliance of the order dated 25.02.2026, a report dated 07.03.2026 with regard to the present stage of trial has been received. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it appears

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15086 of 2026(3) dt.18-03-2026 2/2 that out of 15 Chargesheet witnesses, 13 witnesses, including the informant have been examined and cross-examined and rest two witnesses are to be examined in this case. It is further reported that trial would be concluded within three months.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 25.05.2023 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. From the aforesaid report, it appears that the trial is going on and is at an advance stage.

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 three months from today. If the trial is not concluded within the period of three 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