Patna High Court

Raj Kumar RaiversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 6 February 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: ARUN KUMAR JHA

Holding

The court held that there was no fresh ground to reconsider the earlier bail denial and therefore rejected the bail application.

Summary

The petitioner, Raj Kumar Rai, aged about 75, applied for bail for the second time after his earlier bail plea was denied on 26-10-2024. He has been in custody since 06-03-2024 and argues that only four of the sixteen charge‑sheet witnesses have been examined, none of whom supported the prosecution, and that there is no substantive material against him. The State contended that no new facts have emerged to merit reconsideration of the bail application. The court noted a report from the trial court indicating that bailable warrants have been issued for the remaining witnesses and that the trial court has committed to concluding the trial within six months. Finding no fresh ground to revisit the earlier decision and satisfied that the trial court is addressing the delay, the High Court rejected the bail petition and directed the trial court to adhere to its timeline.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite the delay in trial and limited witness examination.
Whether any fresh ground exists to reconsider the earlier denial of bail.
Whether the petitioner's advanced age and health warrant the grant of bail.

Subjects

bail
criminal procedure
trial delay
witness examination
age of accused
custody

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.84077 of 2025
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-372 Year-2023 Thana- DUMRA District- Sitamarhi
                 ======================================================
                 Raj Kumar Rai S/O Late Jiya Lal Rai R/O Village- Mirchaiya, P.S.- Dumra,
                 Dist. - Sitamarhi.

                                                                                   ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                        Versus

                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate
                                                  Mr.Virendra Kumar, Advocate
                                                  Mr. Rishabh Kumar Mourya, Advocate
                 For the State            :       Mrs.Sharda Kumari, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   06-02-2026                    This is the second attempt of the petitioner to seek

                   bail from this Court as his earlier prayer for bail was rejected

                   vide order dated 26.10.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 53998 of

                   2024 by this Court.

                                  2. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the

                   petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since

                   06.03.2024 and till date only 4 witnesses have been examined

                   out of 16 charge sheet named witnesses and they have also not

                   supported the prosecution case. Learned senior counsel further

                   submits that the petitioner is a person aged about 75 years and

                   the FIR was instituted on the complaint filed by the son of the

                   petitioner. However, the petitioner and other family members
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84077 of 2025(3) dt.06-02-2026
                                            2/3




          were themselves made accused in the present case and except

          suspicion there is no material against the petitioner. Learned

          senior counsel further submits that the petitioner is languishing

          in custody without there being any substantive material against

          him.

                        3. Learned APP opposes the contention made on

          behalf of the petitioner. Learned APP submits that no new fact

          has come to record to reconsider the prayer for bail of the

          petitioner.

                        4. A report has been received from learned District &

          Additional Sessions Judge-IV -cum- Exclusive Special Judge

          (Rape & POCSO), Sitamarhi, wherein it has been submitted that

          there are altogether 16 prosecution witnesses named in the

          charge sheet and out of which 4 witnesses have been examined

          and for appearance of other witnesses bailable warrants have

          been issued on 24.11.2025. The learned trial court further sought

          time of six months for conclusion of the trial.

                        5. In the light of aforesaid facts and circumstances, I

          do not find any fresh ground to reconsider the prayer for bail of

          the petitioner. So far the delay in trial is concerned, learned trial

          court is conscious about concluding the trial within six months.

          Therefore, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84077 of 2025(3) dt.06-02-2026
                                                        3/3




                                   6. The learned trial court is directed to abide by its

                      undertaking and conclude the trial within the period as

                      stipulated in its communication.



                                                (Arun Kumar Jha, J)

    DKS/-

U       T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…