Patna High Court

Niraj KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 9 January 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: R P MISHRA

Holding

Bail was denied as there were no new grounds and the trial was at an advanced stage.

Summary

The petitioner, Niraj Kumar, was arrested in connection with a case under Sections 363, 366 and 366-A of the Indian Penal Code and has been in judicial custody since 28 April 2024. He filed a second bail application after an earlier bail request was denied. The trial is at an advanced stage with two witnesses examined, charge framed, and three charge‑sheeted witnesses, including the victim, yet to be examined. The petitioner argued he has no prior criminal record and has been detained without reason, while the State opposed bail, noting the lack of any new ground and the proximity of trial completion. The court found no fresh circumstances justifying bail and, considering the advanced stage of trial, rejected the bail petition, directing the lower court to expedite the trial and allowing the petitioner to re‑apply after the victim’s examination.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail at an advanced stage of trial for offences under Sections 363, 366 and 366-A IPC
Whether any new ground exists to merit granting bail on the second application

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 363, 366, 366-A

Subjects

bail
criminal procedure
IPC
Theft
Kidnapping
judicial custody
trial stage

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76376 of 2025
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-98 Year-2024 Thana- SOHSARAI District- Nalanda
                 ======================================================
                 Niraj Kumar Son of Nandu Yadav @ Nandu @ Nandu Yadav @ Nanhu Yadav
                 Resident Of Village- Malawan Dumranwan, Ps- Sare, Dist- Nalanda

                                                                                  ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    Sita Devi wife of Late Satyanarayan Prasad Resident Of Village- Sohdih, Ps-
                 Sohsarai, Dist- Nalanda

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Rudal Singh, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Chandra Sen Prasad Singh, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
                 MISHRA
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   09-01-2026                     Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

                   learned APP for the State.

                           2.      The petitioner seeks bail in connection with

                   Sohsarai P.S. Case No. 98 of 2024 instituted for the offences

                   under Sections 363, 366 and 366-A of the Indian Penal Code.

                           3.      This is the second attempt of the petitioner for bail.

                   The petitioner has renewed his prayer for grant of regular bail

                   which was earlier rejected by this Court vide order dated

                   24.03.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 61261 of 2024.

                           4.      In compliance of the order dated 11.11.2025, a

                   report dated 19.11.2025 with regard to the present stage of trial

                   has been received. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76376 of 2025(3) dt.09-01-2026
                                                         2/2




                       appears that two witnesses have been examined in this case. It is

                       further reported that charge has already been framed against the

                       petitioner on 07.04.2025 as also three charge-sheeted witnesses

                       including the victim are yet to be examined in this case and the

                       trial is likely to be concluded within six months.

                               5.      Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                       petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 28.04.2024

                       without any rhymes or reason and has got no criminal

                       antecedent.

                               6.      Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed

                       the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner.

                               7.      There is no new 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. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to

                       renew his prayer for bail before the learned Court below itself

                       after the examination of the victim.



                                                                   (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Rajorshi/-

U       T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…