Nikhil Kumar @ Karan Kumar @ Nikhil v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23183 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-642 Year-2024 Thana- DANAPUR District- Patna ====================================================== Nikhil Kumar @ Karan Kumar @ Nikhil Son of Shankar Rai @ Shankar Prasad Resident of Village- Ramji chak, Bataganj, PS- Digha, District- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rahul Raj, Advocate For the State :

Mr.Ganesh Prasad Singh, APP For the Informant : Mr. Sunit Kumar Srivastava, Advocate Mr. Upendra Ujjwal, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 15-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.

2. This is the second attempt of the petitioner to seek bail from this Court as his prayer for bail was earlier rejected vide order dated 13.08.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 33668 of 2025.

3. As per prosecution case, while the brother of the informant had been going to his work place on a e-rickshaw,

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23183 of 2026(6) dt.15-05-2026 2/3 two persons on a motorcycle snatched the bag being carried by the brother of the informant. The brother of the informant fell down and sustained injury and subsequently, succumbed to his injuries during treatment. The name of the petitioner transpired as one of the snatchers.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 04.02.2025 and only 2 witnesses have been examined, out of 4 charge sheet named witnesses. Learned counsel further submits that the implication of the petitioner is mainly on the basis that Aadhar Card of the deceased was recovered from his house along with a motorcycle used in the crime. But the said motorcycle does not belong to this petitioner and its recovery has falsely been shown from the house of the petitioner and it has been recovered from a public place.

5. Learned APP as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant submits that out of 4 prosecution witnesses, 3 have been examined and the trial is likely to be disposed of within a short period.

6. Since no fresh ground has been brought on record for reconsideration of prayer for bail of the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and hence, his prayer

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23183 of 2026(6) dt.15-05-2026 3/3 for bail is rejected.

(Arun Kumar Jha, J) DKS/- U T