Patna High Court
Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjit Kumar @ Ranjit MahtoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The bail application was dismissed as there were no fresh grounds to alter the earlier order.
Summary
The petitioner, Ranjeet Kumar, sought regular bail in a case registered under Sections 103(1), 238 and 3(5) of the BNS for a murder alleged to have been committed by unknown criminals. The trial court had already rejected his earlier bail application, noting that the petitioner had been in custody since September 2024 and that the trial was nearing completion. The petitioner argued that all prosecution witnesses had been examined, but the High Court found no fresh material or change in circumstances to warrant a review of the earlier order. The court observed that the gravity of the offences and the advanced stage of the trial justified the continued denial of bail. Consequently, the application for bail was dismissed, confirming the earlier order.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted when the trial is on the verge of completion and all prosecution witnesses have been examined under Sections 103(1), 238 and 3(5) of the BNS
Legislation cited
- BNS — s. 103(1), 238, 3(5)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- trial progress
- no fresh grounds
- Sections 103(1) BNS
- Section 238 BNS
- Section 3(5) BNS
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.753 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-521 Year-2024 Thana- MUZAFFARPUR SADAR District-
Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjit Kumar @ Ranjit Mahto S/o- Rajkishore Mahto @
Kishore Mahto Village- Ahiyapur PS-Sahebganj District- Muzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Yugal Kishore, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Madhuri Lata, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 12-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. This is the second attempt on behalf of the
petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Sadar
(Muzaffarpur) P.S. Case No. 521 of 2024 registered for the
offence under Sections 103(1), 238 and 3(5) of the BNS.
3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner has
been rejected vide order dated 04.09.2025 passed in Cr. Misc.
No. 27891 of 2025, which reads as under:
“Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in
connection with Sadar (Muzaffarpur) P.S. Case
No. 521 of 2024 registered for the offence under
Sections 103(1), 238 and 3(5) of the BNS.
3. As per the prosecution case,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.753 of 2026(2) dt.12-02-2026
2/2
unknown criminals are said to have killed the
deceased.
4. The petitioner is in custody since
9.9.2024.
5. The informant had suspected the
hand of the petitioner and others in the crime as
they were threatening the informant because of
her son Jai Prakash Kumar.
6. In the trial, out of 5 charge-sheeted
witnesses, four witnesses have already been
examined.
7. Considering the gravity of the
offence and also the fact that the trial is on the
verge of completion, this Court is not inclined to
grant bail to the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, this application is
dismissed.”
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits all the
prosecution witnesses have been examined.
5. Considering the fact that all the witnesses have
been examined in the trial i.e., the trial has progressed and
further no fresh grounds for grant of bail is made out, I am not
inclined to review my earlier order.
6. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
P. Kumar
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.