Vikas Jha @ Bikash Jha @ Kaliya v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.41332 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-62 Year-2023 Thana- PHENHARA District- East Champaran ====================================================== VIKAS JHA @ BIKASH JHA @ KALIYA S/O Subodh Jha Resident of village- Bathnaha, P.S.- Bathnaha, District- Sitamarhi ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Choubey Jawahar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 03-07-2026 Heard Mr. Vikash Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Choubey Jawahar, learned APP for the State.

2.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Phenhara P.S. Case No. 62 of 2023, instituted for the offences under Sections 302, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms 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 16.09.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 44474 of 2025 taking into consideration facts and circumstances of the case and twentyfour criminal antecedents of the petitioner.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41332 of 2026(2) dt.03-07-2026 2/2 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 11.03.2025 without any rhymes or reason and has got twenty-four criminal antecedents. It is further submitted that neither charge has been framed nor any witness has been examined in this case.

5. As per report dated 19.05.2026, sent by the learned Trial Court in Cr. Misc. No. 29098 of 2026, it transpires that a petition under Section 250 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. 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.

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.

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