Ritik Kumar @ Khoaa Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91394 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-836 Year-2022 Thana- NAGAR District- Vaishali ====================================================== Ritik Kumar @ Khoaa Singh, S/O Raju Kumar Ram @ Raju Ram Resident of Mohalla- Ambedkar Colony Subhash Chok Pokhara Mohalla Hajipur, Police Station- Hajipur Town, Dist.- Vaishali ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Ranjeet Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Anil Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 06-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. In the present case, the petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sessions Trial No. 684 of 2023, arising out of Hajipur Town P.S. Case No. 836 of 2022, registered for the alleged offences under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the father of the informant was murdered by unknown miscreants and the name of the petitioner transpired during investigation as one of the persons involved in the alleged offence.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is the third attempt of the petitioner to seek bail from this
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91394 of 2025(3) dt.06-02-2026 2/3 Court. Earlier, the prayers for bail of the petitioner were rejected vide orders dated 01.02.2024 & 17.01.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. Nos. 65317 of 2023 & 58538 of 2024, respectively. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 21.11.2022, but the trial has not been concluded till date. The learned counsel further submits that there is no likelihood of early conclusion of trial.
5. The learned APP vehemently opposes the submission made on behalf of the petitioner. The learned APP submits that no fresh ground has been brought on record for reconsideration of prayer of bail and the period of custody could not be a ground.
6. A report dated 17.01.2026 has been received from the learned trial court about the present stage of trial wherein the learned trial court has submitted that all the prosecution witnesses have been examined in this case except for one seizure list witness and for appearance of aforesaid seizure list witness, NBW was issued on 16.01.2026 and the learned trial court has further submitted that the trial was likely to be concluded within two months.
7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and submission made on behalf of the parties, I do not find any new
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91394 of 2025(3) dt.06-02-2026 3/3 ground to reconsider the prayer for bail of the petitioner. Hence, his prayer for grant of bail is rejected.
8. However, the learned trial court is directed to abide by its undertaking and dispose of the matter at the earliest.
9. At the same time, the Superintendent of Police, Vaishali at Hajipur is directed to ensure the presence of remaining prosecution witness on the date fixed before the learned trial court. In case, the Superintendent of Police fails to produce the witness on the date fixed, he will be called before this Court to explain the circumstances.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J) V.K.Pandey/- U T