Ashok KumarversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28761 of 2026
                         Arising Out of PS. Case No.-121 Year-2025 Thana- TEKARI District- Gaya
                 ======================================================
           1.     Ashok Kumar S/o Udaya Yadav R/o Village - Mahmana, P.S. - Tekari, Dist. -
                  Gaya.
           2.    Raj Kumar Yadav @ Raj Kumar S/o Late Hiraman Yadav R/o Village -
                 Mahmana, P.S. - Tekari, Dist. - Gaya.
           3.    Mayum Kumar @ Mayum Yadav @ Mochin Yadav S/o Surendra Yadav R/o
                 Village - Mahmana, P.S. - Tekari, Dist. - Gaya.

                                                                                   ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                        Versus
                 The State of Bihar Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Ravi Kumar
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Surendra Kumar
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   08-05-2026               1.    Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned

                   counsel for the informant and learned A.P.P. for the State.

                             2.    The petitioners seek bail in a case registered for the

                   offences punishable under Sections 126(1), 126(2), 115(2),

                   118(1), 117(2), 109, 324(4), 324(5), 103 and 3(5) of the

                   Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

                             3.    Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

                   petitioners are in custody since 12.03.2025.

                             4.    Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

                   petitioners had earlier moved this Court seeking regular bail by

                   filing Cr. Misc. No. 61982 of 2025 and the same came to be
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28761 of 2026(2) dt.08-05-2026
                                            2/3




          rejected vide order dated 24.02.2026 with liberty to the

          petitioners to renew their prayer after framing of charge.

          Learned counsel submits that the charges against the petitioners

          stands framed by an order dated 27.02.2026 as such in terms of

          liberty so granted, the instant regular bail application has been

          filed.

                   5.     Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel

          appearing on behalf of informant vehemently opposes the prayer

          for bail of the petitioners. The learned counsel appearing on

          behalf of informant submits that similarly situated co-accused,

          namely, Pramod Kumar and another had approached this Court

          seeking regular bail by filing Cr. Misc. No. 28119 of 2026 in the

          terms of liberty granted to them to renew their prayer for bail

          after framing of charge. It is submitted that charges were framed

          against them by order dated 27.02.2026 thereafter aforesaid

          criminal miscellaneous was filed but the Court after hearing the

          parties was pleased to reject the regular bail application. It is

          submitted that case of the instant petitioners is also similar to

          the case of Pramod Kumar and another.

                   6.     Learned APP also support the submissions of

          learned counsel for the informant.

                   7.     Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28761 of 2026(2) dt.08-05-2026
                                                        3/3




                      petitioners is not in a position to rebut the submissions of the

                      learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.

                               8.     After hearing learned counsel for the parties and

                      taking into consideration the order dated 08.05.2026 in Cr.

                      Misc. No. 28119 of 2026, the Court is not inclined to release the

                      petitioners on bail.

                               9.     However, it is directed that the learned trial court

                      shall ensure that no unnecessary adjournments are given in the

                      trial as it has been submitted by learned counsel appearing on

                      behalf of informant that informant will produce the witnesses as

                      and when directed by learned trial court. It is further made clear

                      that if the trial is not concluded within four months from the

                      date of receipt/production of the order for no fault of the

                      petitioners, the petitioners would be at liberty to renew their

                      prayer for bail.

                               10. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned

                      District Judge, Gaya for its onward communication to the

                      concerned court, District Magistrate and Senior Superintendent

                      of Police.



                                                (Satyavrat Verma, J)
Ranjeet/-

U      T