Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Santu Kumar @ Amrit RajversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL REJECTED

Holding

The court denied bail to the petitioner.

Summary

The petitioner, Santu Kumar, was arrested on 18 August 2025 and charged with several offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. He applied for regular bail after the charge was framed. The State opposed the bail, citing a recent similar bail application (Cr. Misc. No. 28119 of 2026) that had been rejected. The court, after hearing both sides, found the petitioner unable to rebut the State's submission and declined to grant bail. The court ordered the trial court to avoid unnecessary adjournments and allowed the petitioner to renew his bail plea if the trial is not concluded within four months of the order, provided the delay is not his fault. The bail application was therefore dismissed.

Issues considered

  • Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail for the offences charged under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
  • Whether the precedent of a similar bail application being rejected should influence the current bail decision.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • criminal procedure
  • Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
  • trial adjournments
  • multiple offences

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29603 of 2026
                         Arising Out of PS. Case No.-121 Year-2025 Thana- TEKARI District- Gaya
                 ======================================================
                 Santu Kumar @ Amrit Raj S/O Ramashish Prasad Yadav R/O - Mahmana,
                 P.S- Tekari, Dist- Gaya
                                                                      ... ... Petitioner/s
                                              Versus
                 The State of Bihar Patna
                                                               ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr.Ravi Kumar
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr.Uday Chand Prasad
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   08-05-2026                  Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P.

                   for the State.

                                2. The petitioner seeks 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 petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner is in custody since 18.08.205.

                                4. Learned counsel for the informant submits that

                   petitioner has moved this Court seeking regular bail in terms of

                   liberty granted to him for renewing his prayer for bail after framing

                   of charge but then in similar manner Pramod Kumar and another had

                   also approached this Court seeking regular bail in terms of liberty

                   granted by filing Cr. Misc. No. 28119 of 2026 and the same came to

                   be rejected vide order dated 08.05.2026.

                                5. Learned A.P.P. for the State concur with the submission
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29603 of 2026(2) dt.08-05-2026
                                                        2/2




                      made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.

                                   6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

                      petitioner is not in a position to rebut the said submission.

                                   7. 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 petitioner on bail.

                                   8. Accordingly, the application stands rejected.

                                   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


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.