Pramod Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28119 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-121 Year-2025 Thana- TEKARI District- Gaya ====================================================== 1.

Pramod Kumar Son of Akhilesh Yadav Resident of Mahmana, P.S.- Tekari, District - Gaya.

2.

Vikash Kumar @ Vikash Yadav Son of Lalu Yadav Resident of Mahmana, P.S.- Tekari, District - Gaya.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ravi Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Surendra Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 08-05-2026 1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2.

The petitioners seek 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 petitioners submits that the petitioners are in custody since 08.03.205, are persons with clean antecedent and charge-sheet has been submitted in the case.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had earlier moved this Court seeking regular bail by

2/4 filing Cr. Misc. No. 55165 of 2025 and the same came to be rejected vide order dated 24.02.2026 with liberty to the petitioners to renew their prayer after framing of charge. Learned counsel submits that the charges against the petitioners stands framed by an order dated 27.02.2026 as such in terms of liberty so granted, the instant regular bail application has been filed.

5.

Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of informant vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioners. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of informant submits that no doubt charges against the petitioners have been framed but then allegation is of causing death of the victim on account of assault made by the petitioners. It is further submitted that altogether there are six prosecution witnesses and after framing of charge on 27.02.2026 two prosecutio10. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned of Police. n witnesses have been examined. It is also submitted that the informant will ensure that all the witnesses are brought before the court in the trial for recording their evidence without any delay. It is thus submitted that since trial has commenced

3/4 and prosecution witnesses are being examined and as such merely because liberty was granted to renew the prayer for bail that in itself does not entitle the petitioners for being released on bail, it is submitted that liberty no doubt was granted but then the same requires consideration in view of the subsequent development which have taken place.

6.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court is in agreement with the submission made by learned counsel for the10. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned of Police. informant thus is not inclined to release the petitioners on bail.

7.

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.

4/4

8. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned of Police.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Ranjeet/- U T