Dismissed¶22

Sikindra Raut @ Sikandar Raut v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC1 May 2026CR. MISC./20091/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sikindra Raut @ Sikandar Raut second bail application rejected; Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20091 of 2026, order dt. 01-05-2026, Arun Kumar Jha, J.; arises out of PS Case No. 45 of 2025, Thana Piprahi, District Sheohar; earlier bail rejected 03.09.2025 in Cr. Misc. No. 35157 of 2025; custody since 15.03.2025; charge framed 29.10.2025; 4 of 10 witnesses examined; trial court report dated 16.04.2026; trial to conclude within nine months; no fresh ground for reconsideration; trial court directed to conclude trial at earliest; counsel Ashok Kumar Jha for petitioner, Anish Chandra APP for State.

What did the court decide?

There is no fresh ground for reconsideration of the petitioner's prayer for bail; accordingly, his prayer for bail is rejected. ¶22

Sikindra Raut @ Sikandar Raut Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20091 of 2026

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-45 Year-2025 Thana- PIPRAHI District- Sheohar

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Sikindra Raut @ Sikandar Raut S/o Late Janak Raut @ Late Janag Raut Resident of Village - Ramnagra, P.S.- Riga, District - Sitamarhi

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

======================================================

¶10

Appearance :

¶11

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ashok Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Anish Chandra, APP ======================================================

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER

¶13

3 01-05-2026

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶15

APP for the State.

¶16

This is the second attempt of the petitioner to seek bail from this Court as earlier his prayer for bail was rejected vide order dated 03.09.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 35157 of 2025.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 15.03.2025 and there is no likelihood of early conclusion of trial. Learned counsel further submits that out of 10 charge sheet named witnesses, only 4 witnesses have been examined till date after framing of charge on 29.10.2025. Learned counsel further submits that there is no serious allegation against the petitioner and only allegation against the petitioner was that he along with co-accused Arjun

¶18

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20091 of 2026(3) dt.01-05-2026 2/3

¶19

caught hold of the deceased and the co-accused Tausif repeatedly stabbed him. But the allegation does not seem probable that while co-accused Arjun and petitioner caught hold of the deceased, co-accused Tausif repeatedly stabbed him. Learned counsel further submits that moreover there is no dispute between the petitioner and the deceased.

¶20

Learned APP opposes the submission made on behalf of the petitioner. Learned APP submits that no fresh ground has been brought on record for reconsideration of prayer for bail of the petitioner. Even otherwise there is no delay in trial as already 4 witnesses have been examined after framing of charge.

¶21

From perusal of record, I find that a report dated 16.04.2026 has been received from learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Sheohar in compliance of order dated 10.04.2026. The learned trial court has submitted that after framing of charge on 29.10.2025, 4 witnesses have been examined out of 10 witnesses and further submitted that the trial will conclude within nine months.

¶22

From perusal of record, I find that there is no fresh ground for reconsideration of prayer for bail of the petitioner and hence, his prayer for bail is rejected.

¶23

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20091 of 2026(3) dt.01-05-2026 3/3

¶24