Ayush Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30133 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-211 Year-2025 Thana- MIRGANJ District- Gopalganj ====================================================== Ayush Kumar S/o Raju Verma Resident of Village - Sawrejee, P.S. - Mirganj, District - Gopalganj.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Kumar Harshvardhan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Nitya Nand Tiwary, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 07-05-2026 Heard the parties.

2. This is the second attempt of the petitioner for grant of regular bail in connection with Mirganj P.S. Case No. 211 of 2025 registered for the offence under Sections 115(2), 109, 121(2), 132 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25(1-b)a, 26(2), 27 and 35 of the Arms Act. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 07.10.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 67156 of 2025 which reads as under:- Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Mirganj P.S. Case No. 211 of 2025 registered for the offence under Sections 115(2), 109, 121(2), 132 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25(1-b)a, 26(2), 27 and 35 of the Arms Act.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30133 of 2026(2) dt.07-05-2026 2/2

3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner and others are accused of demanding extortion from the informant. The petitioner has been caught collecting the extortion money.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence. Petitioner is in custody since 30.04.2025.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

6. Considering the nature of the accusation and the gravity of the offense, this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this application for regular bail stands rejected.

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner is in custody since 30.04.2025, but till now the trial has not commenced.

4. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court finds no ground to review its earlier order.

5. Accordingly, this application is dismissed again with direction to the concerned court below to expedite the trial. (Sandeep Kumar, J) tusharika/- U T