Patna High CourtCR. MISC./22648/2026bail rejected

Gautam Kumar @ Gautam Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2026-05-15Mr. Justice Ramesh Chand Malviya2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22648 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-256 Year-2024 Thana- BUNIYAD GANJ District- Gaya ====================================================== Gautam Kumar @ Gautam Singh, aged about 34 years, Gender-Male, Son of Ajit Kumar Singh @ Ajit Singh @ Ajit Kumar, Resident of VillageNagriyawan, P.S.- Khizer Sarai, District- Gaya. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rakesh Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ram Naresh Ray, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL ORDER 15-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is in custody in connection with Sessions Trial No. 745 of 2025 arising out of Buniyadganj P.S. Case No. 256 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Section 103, 3(5) of the BNS and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. As per the allegation in the FIR, the petitioner is alleged to have committed the murder of the son of the informant, namely, Sujay Kumar by the gun short fired, who was working as a Munshi in the trading of sand.

4. This is the third attempt for regular bail of this petitioner. Earlier the prayer for bail of this petitioner was twice rejected by this Court passed in Cr. Misc. Nos. 11474 of 2025 and 90108 of 2025 vide orders dated 13.05.2025 and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22648 of 2026(4) dt.15-05-2026 2/2 16.01.2026, respectively.

5. From perusal of the report of the learned D & A.S.J.-XVth, Gaya vide letter no. 143 dated 30.04.2026, it appears that charges have been framed on 24.02.2026 against the accused persons under Sections 103, 3(5) of the BNS and Section 27 of the Arms Act and summons have been issued to the witnesses on 12.03.2026 and, therefore, four witnesses have been examined out of seven witnesses named in the chargesheet. It also appears that three witnesses named in the chargesheet are still to be examined and the trial of this case is likely to be concluded within six months as stated in the report but there is no fresh ground to reconsider the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is again rejected.

7. However, the learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial expeditiously.

(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J) Anand Kr.

U T