Kanhaiya Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29207 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-110 Year-2024 Thana- BARGAINIA District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Kanhaiya Kumar S/o Guddu Kumar @ Guddu Mahto Resident of Village - Mokama, PS - Mokama, District - Patna Present Address - Kanpa Sahera Gali No. 05, Delhi in the House of Niraj Yadav ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Dwij Raj, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mrs. Renu Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 24-07-2026 Heard Mr. Dwij Raj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Renu Kumari, learned APP for the State. 2.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Bairgania P.S. Case No. 110 of 2024, instituted for the offences under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 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 27.02.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 85832 of 2024 taking into consideration enough material against the petitioner in case diary.

4.

In compliance of the order dated 03.07.2026, a report dated 13.07.2026 with regard to the present stage of trial has been received. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29207 of 2026(4) dt.24-07-2026 2/2 appears that at present the case is running for the prosecution evidence and for filing rejoinder by defence to the prosecution petition. It is further reported vide report dated 23.06.2026 that the trial is likely to be concluded within a period of six months. 5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 13.07.2024 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 three months from today. If the trial is not concluded within the period of three months, as stated above, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer before the court below. (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Rajorshi/- U T