Patna High CourtCR. MISC./88191/2025bail rejected

Ravindra Rai @ Ravindra Ray v. The State Of Bihar

2026-02-26Mr. Justice R. P. Mishra2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.88191 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-18 Year-2024 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Ravindra Rai @ Ravindra Ray Son of Late Gajendra Rai Village- Bara jagarnath P.s.- Akiyapur Distt- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr.Raj Ballabh Singh, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 26-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 18 of 2024, instituted for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 376, 376-D and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Earlier vide order dated 08.07.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 5497 of 2025, regular bail of the petitioner was rejected by this Court considering the nature and gravity of the offence and the involvement of the petitioner, with a direction to the learned court below to expedite the trial as expeditiously as possible.

4. In compliance of the order dated 09.01.2026, a report dated 11.02.2026 with regard to the present stage of trial has

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88191 of 2025(3) dt.26-02-2026 2/2 been received. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it appears that out of four Charge-sheet witnesses, two witnesses, including informant/victim have been examined. It is further reported that the trial will be concluded within six months.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 15.06.2024 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. From the aforesaid report, it appears that the trial is going on.

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) manish/- U T