Patna High CourtCR. MISC./22892/2026bail rejected

Umesh Rajbanshi v. The State Of Bihar

2026-05-15Mr. Justice R. P. Mishra2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22892 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-44 Year-2025 Thana- RAJAOLI District- Nawada ====================================================== Umesh Rajbanshi Son of Late Shivbalak Rajbanshi Resident of villageLaxmi Bigha, P.S- Rajauli, Dist- Nawada ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr.C. Jawahar, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 15-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Choubey Jawahar, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Rajauli P.S. Case No. 44 of 2025, instituted for the offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109, 303(2), 3(5) and 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. Earlier, vide order dated 01.09.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 52345 of 2025, regular bail of the petitioner was rejected by this Court considering the nature of accusation and the gravity of the offence with direction to the learned trial court to expedite the trial.

4. In compliance of the order dated 03.04.2026, a report dated 10.04.2026 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.22892 of 2026(3) dt.15-05-2026 2/2 that Charge has been framed against the petitioner on 02.12.2025 and summons were issued against the prosecution witnesses. Out of seven Charge-sheet witnesses, two witnesses have been examined.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 03.05.2025 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) manish/- U T