Raju Sah @ Rahu Kumar @ Raju Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1538 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-76 Year-2024 Thana- SAHARSA SADAR District- Saharsa ====================================================== Raju Sah @ Rahu Kumar @ Raju Kumar S/o Chalittar Sah Resident of Village- Sarahi ward no. 40, P.S.- Saharsa, District- Saharsa ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

X W/o-Y Resident of Village- Sarahi, Ward No. 4, P.S. and District- Saharsa ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Randhir Kumar No 1, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ajit Kumar, APP For the OP No. 2 :

Mr. Satish Kumar Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 01-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Special POCSO Case No. 26 of 2024 arising out of Saharsra (Town) P.S. Case No. 76 of 2024 instituted for the offences under Sections 376AB, 511, 341, 323, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Earlier, vide order dated 09.12.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 48238 of 2024, and again vide order dated 07.07.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 26415 of 2025, regular bail of the petitioner was rejected by this Court, considering the nature of accusation and gravity of offence.

4. In compliance of the order dated 17.01.2026 a report dated 29.01.2026 with regard to the present stage of trial has

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1538 of 2026(3) dt.01-05-2026 2/2 been received. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it appears that out of eight charge-sheeted witnesses, five witnesses have been examined.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 28.01.2024 without any rhymes or reason.

6. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed 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 and is at an advance stage.

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 two months from today. If the trial is not concluded within the period of two 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