Patna High CourtCR. MISC./75578/2025bail rejected

Jai @ Jack Kejriwal v. The State Of Bihar

2026-01-09Mr. Justice R. P. Mishra2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.75578 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-345 Year-2024 Thana- SITAMARHI District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Jai @ Jack Kejriwal S/O Sushil Kejriwal @ Sushil Kumar R/O VillageBairgania, PS- Bairgania, Distt.- Sitamarhi ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ritesh Kumar Narain Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Suman Kumari Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 09-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sitamarhi P.S. Case No. 345 of 2024 instituted for the offences under Sections 394, 397 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. Earlier vide order dated 13.02.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 68911 of 2024 regular bail of the petitioner was rejected by this Court considering the material available against the petitioner in the case diary.

4. In compliance of the order dated 31.10.2025 a report dated 04.11.2025 with regard to the present stage of trial has been received. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it appears

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75578 of 2025(3) dt.09-01-2026 2/2 that charge has been framed in this case. It is further reported that trial is likely to be concluded in the next six months.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 18..06.2024 without any rhymes or reason.

6. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for grant of bail.

7. There is no fresh 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 expeditiously 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) Alok Verma/- U T