Nitish Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76131 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-179 Year-2025 Thana- KOCHAS District- Rohtas ====================================================== 1.

Nitish Kumar son of Late Gulab Mahto @ Late Gulab Ram @ Late Gulab Rain Resident of Village- Dighita, Ps- Parsathua, Dist- Rohtas 2.

Prakash Seth Son of Late Bimla Kumar Seth @ Late Bimala Kumar Seth Resident of Village- Rupibandh, Ps- Parsathua, Dist- Rohtas ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Vikalp, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Navin Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 21-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioners have preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Kochas P.S. Case no. 179 of 2025 registered under section 309(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states that three accused persons on the point of country made pistol looted the informant of various articles as described in the FIR. It is further stated that three days later on 18.7.2025 when they were planning to commit another theft, information was given by the informant to the police and the three accused including

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76131 of 2025(3) dt.21-01-2026 2/2 the two petitioners herein were caught.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case. There is no reasonable explanation for the delay of three days in lodging of the FIR. No incriminating article has been recovered from the petitioners' possession who are in custody since 19.7.2025. The petitioners have no criminal antecedent and chargesheet has been submitted in the case.

5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegations against the petitioners in the FIR wherein they were identified by the informant as having given effect to the occurrence against the informant three days ago, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail and the application is rejected.

7. Liberty is granted to the petitioners to renew their prayer for bail after six months or on framing of charge, whichever is later.

(Partha Sarthy, J) sauravkrsinha/- U T