Raj Kumar Rai Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Raj Kumar Rai Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether any fresh ground exists to reconsider the petitioner's prayer for regular bail on this second attempt before the Court. +1 more

Court's answer

The Court found no fresh ground to reconsider the petitioner's prayer for bail.

Ratio / Principle

Consequently, the petitioner's prayer for bail was rejected.

Key takeaways

On the report of the trial court, 4 of the 16 named prosecution witnesses had been examined and bailable warrants had been issued on 24.11.2025 for appearance of the others.ratio¶15
As regards the delay in trial, the Court took into account that the learned trial court had itself sought six months for conclusion of the trial and was conscious of concluding it within that period.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail - second attempt - rejected for want of fresh ground. Raj Kumar Rai (about 75 years old, in custody since 06.03.2024) filed his second bail application in Criminal Miscellaneous No.84077 of 2025 arising from PS Case No. 372 of 2023, P.S. Dumra, District Sitamarhi, his earlier prayer having been rejected on 26.10.2024 in Cr. Misc. No. 53998 of 2024 by the same Court. Counsel urged that only 4 of 16 charge-sheet-named witnesses had been examined and had not supported the prosecution case, that the FIR arose from a complaint by the petitioner's own son, and that the petitioner and family members were themselves accused on mere suspicion; the learned APP countered that no new fact had emerged. A report from the District & Additional Sessions Judge-IV-cum-Exclusive Special Judge (Rape & POCSO), Sitamarhi, showed 4 of 16 witnesses examined, bailable warrants issued on 24.11.2025 for the rest, and a six-month period sought for completing the trial. Holding that no fresh ground existed to reconsider bail and that the trial court was conscious of concluding the trial within six months, Justice Arun Kumar Jha rejected the prayer for bail (oral order dated 06-02-2026).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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