Santu Kumar @ Amrit Raj v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29603 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-121 Year-2025 Thana- TEKARI District- Gaya ====================================================== Santu Kumar @ Amrit Raj S/O Ramashish Prasad Yadav R/O - Mahmana, P.S- Tekari, Dist- Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ravi Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Uday Chand Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 08-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(1), 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 117(2), 109, 324(4), 324(5), 103 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 18.08.205.

4. Learned counsel for the informant submits that petitioner has moved this Court seeking regular bail in terms of liberty granted to him for renewing his prayer for bail after framing of charge but then in similar manner Pramod Kumar and another had also approached this Court seeking regular bail in terms of liberty granted by filing Cr. Misc. No. 28119 of 2026 and the same came to be rejected vide order dated 08.05.2026.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State concur with the submission

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29603 of 2026(2) dt.08-05-2026 2/2 made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is not in a position to rebut the said submission.

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the order dated 08.05.2026 in Cr. Misc. No. 28119 of 2026, the Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.

8. Accordingly, the application stands rejected.

9. However, it is directed that the learned trial court shall ensure that no unnecessary adjournments are given in the trial as it has been submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of informant that informant will produce the witnesses as and when directed by learned trial court. It is further made clear that if the trial is not concluded within four months from the date of receipt/production of the order for no fault of the petitioners, the petitioners would be at liberty to renew their prayer for bail.

10. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned District Judge, Gaya for its onward communication to the concerned court, District Magistrate and Senior Superintendent of Police. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Ranjeet/- U T