Amar Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91065 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-276 Year-2022 Thana- BIKRAM District- Patna ====================================================== Amar Kumar Son of Vidhyanand Nut @ Vidya Nand Nat Resident of Village - Azad Nagar, P.S. - Bikram, Distt. - Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 06-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This is the second attempt of the petitioner for grant of regular bail in connection with Bikram P.S. Case No. 276/2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376/34 of Indian Penal Code. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 28.11.2023 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 54494 of 2023 which reads as under:- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner has filed the instant application for grant of regular bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per allegation in the FIR, petitioner in connivance with other co-accused persons ravished the informant when she has gone out side of village for call of nature at about 9 PM.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91065 of 2025(5) dt.06-04-2026 2/2 petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. There is no eye witness of the alleged offence. Moreover, the Petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 23.6.2022.

In contra, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submitted that victim has specifically stated about the complicity of petitioner in her ravishment. She has stated, in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., that the petitioner has committed rape with her in connivance with other co-accused persons.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of allegation, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected. Learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within stipulated time as mentioned in the status report of Trial Court.

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial is progressing and four witnesses have been examined.

4. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court finds no ground to review its earlier order.

5. Accordingly, this application is dismissed again. (Sandeep Kumar, J) tusharika/- U T