Patna High Court
Santu Kumar @ Amrit RajversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court denied bail to the petitioner, allowing only a renewal of the bail application after charge framing.
Summary
The petitioner, Santu Kumar (also known as Amrit Raj), filed a regular bail application in the Patna High Court. Earlier bail applications by Pramod Kumar and Vikash Kumar were rejected, with the court allowing them to renew their prayers after the charge was framed. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the case had been considered on merits and sought bail. The State’s Additional Public Prosecutor did not oppose the submission. The court, however, was not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and rejected the application. The petitioner was permitted to file a fresh bail application after the framing of charges.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail at this stage of the proceedings
Subjects
- bail
- regular bail
- criminal procedure
- high court
- charge framing
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.77911 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-121 Year-2025 Thana- TEKARI District- Gaya
======================================================
Santu Kumar @ Amrit Raj S/o Ramashish Prasad Yadav R/o Village-
Mahmana, P.S.- Tekari, District- Gaya
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ashok Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Choubey Jawahar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 24-02-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Pramod Kumar and Vikash Kumar had approached this Court
seeking regular bail by filing Cr. Misc. No.55165 of 2025 and
the same came to be rejected by an order dated 24.02.2026 with
liberty to them to renew their prayer for bail after framing of
charge. It is also submitted that the case was considered on
merits and in detail.
3. The learned A.P.P. does not oppose the said
submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner.
4. The Court is not inclined to release the petitioner
on bail, hence rejected.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77911 of 2025(3) dt.24-02-2026
2/2
5. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to
renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…