Sugriv Kumar Rawat v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26593 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-217 Year-2025 Thana- KUDRA District- Kaimur (Bhabua) ====================================================== Sugriv Kumar Rawat S/O Late Kishan Rawat @ Krishna Prasad @ Kisan Rawat R/O Vill - Ghatawan, Ward no.- 5,P.S - Kudra,Dist.- Kaimur at Bhabhua ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

XX W/O YY R/O Vill - Ghatawan,P.S - Kudra,Dist.- Kaimur at Bhabhua ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Kiran Kumari Sharma, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Anand Kishore Choudhary, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Amit Ranjan, Advocate Mr. Pravin Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 17-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Kudra P.S. Case No. 217 of 2025, instituted for the offences under Sections 329(4), 64(1), 115(2), 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 4/6 of the POCSO Act. 3.

This is the second attempt of the petitioner for bail. The petitioner has renewed his prayer for grant of regular bail which was earlier rejected by this Court vide order dated 13.10.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 49880 of 2025 taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case as also Section 183 BNSS statement of the victim.

4.

In compliance of the order dated 19.06.2026, a

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26593 of 2026(4) dt.17-07-2026 2/2 report dated 30.06.2026 with regard to the present stage of trial has been received. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it appears that charge has already been framed against the petitioner on 04.09.2025 and out of seven charge-sheeted witnesses, only five witnesses have been examined in this case. It is further reported that the trial is likely to be concluded within a period of four months.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 17.05.2025 without any rhymes or reason and has got no criminal antecedent.

6.

Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. 7.

There is no new 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 preferably within a period of two months from today.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Rajorshi/- U T