Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Rohi Kumar @ GohiyaversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL REJECTED

Holding

The bail petition was dismissed as no fresh ground was shown to justify overturning the earlier denial.

Summary

Rohi Kumar was arrested in connection with a case involving murder (Sec. 302 IPC), abetment of murder (Sec. 201 IPC), conspiracy (Sec. 34 IPC), kidnapping (Sec. 364 IPC), rape (Sec. 376 IPC) and an offence under Sec. 6 of the POCSO Act. The petitioner had earlier been denied regular bail by the Patna High Court. He filed a fresh bail petition, claiming he had been in judicial custody since 6 February 2024 without justification. The State opposed the bail, and the court observed that the trial was still at the evidence stage with no witnesses examined and that there were no new grounds to revisit the earlier decision. Consequently, the court rejected the bail application, directing the lower court to complete the trial within five months and permitting the petitioner to renew his bail plea if the trial is not concluded within that period.

Issues considered

  • What is the appropriate bail jurisprudence for a petitioner charged with serious offences such as murder, kidnapping, rape and a POCSO violation at the evidentiary stage of trial?
  • Whether any fresh ground exists to merit a reconsideration of the earlier bail denial.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • murder
  • kidnapping
  • rape
  • POCSO
  • serious offences
  • evidence stage
  • trial delay
  • judicial custody

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.87156 of 2025
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-8 Year-2024 Thana- AKBARNAGAR District- Bhagalpur
                 ======================================================
                 Rohi Kumar @ Gohiya S/o Lakhan Rishidev @ Lakhan Risidev R/o Village-
                 Harinagar, P.S.- Akbarnagar, Dist.- Bhagalpur

                                                                                 ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    xxxx S/o Late Jyotish Manjhi R/o Village- Gangania (Fatehpur), P.S.-
                 Sultanganj, Dist.- Bhagalpur

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

5   15-05-2026               Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP

                   for the State.

                             2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with

                   Akbarnagar P.S. Case No. 8 of 2024 instituted for the offences

                   under Sections 302, 201, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the

                   charge-sheet has been submitted under Sections 364, 376 of the

                   IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

                             3. Earlier, vide order dated 29.10.2024 passed in Cr.

                   Misc. No. 54495 of 2024, regular bail of the petitioner was

                   rejected by this Court considering the nature and gravity of

                   offence as also materials available against the petitioner in the

                   case diary.
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87156 of 2025(5) dt.15-05-2026
                                                       2/2




                              4. In compliance of the order dated 09.01.2026 a report

                     dated 17.01.2026 with regard to the present stage of trial has

                     been received. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it appears

                     that the case is at the stage of evidence and there are seven

                     charge-sheeted witnesses but none of them have been examined.

                              5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                     petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 06.02.2024

                     without any rhymes or reason.

                              6. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for

                     grant of bail.

                              7. There is no fresh ground to consider the bail petition

                     of the petitioner.

                              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 and conclude the same expeditiously

                     preferably within a period of five months from today. If the trial

                     is not concluded within the period of five months, as stated

                     above, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer before

                     the court below.



                                           (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Alok Verma/-

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.