Patna High CourtCR. MISC./25648/2026rejected

Mohril Kumar Yadav @ Mohril Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2026-07-20Mr. Justice Ramesh Chand Malviya2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25648 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1 Year-2025 Thana- KATORIYA District- Banka ====================================================== Mohril Kumar Yadav @ Mohril Kumar, aged about 23 years (Male), Son of Pramod Yadav, R/o Village - Targachha, P.S. - Katoriya, District - Banka. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Brij Nandan Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Anil Kumar Singh No-1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL ORDER 20-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is in custody in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 118(2), 109(1) and 3(5) of the BNS.

3. Earlier the prayer for bail of this petitioner was rejected by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in Cr. Misc. No. 27441 of 2025

4. As per allegation in the FIR, some unknown persons shot fired upon the son of informant, as a result of which, he sustained injuries.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case due to dirty

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25648 of 2026(4) dt.20-07-2026 2/2 village politics. He next submits that there is general and omnibus allegation against him and his name figured only on the basis of suspicion. He has got clean antecedent as stated in para-3 of the petition and he is in custody since 07.01.2025.

6. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

7. On perusal of the first information report, the report of the learned trial Judge vide letter no.47 dated 28.04.2026 and impugned order dated 20.02.2026, it appears from the report of the trial court that there are altogether six prosecution witnesses in this case but only two witnesses have been examined up till now and estimated time is required to conclude the trial and the trial is likely to be concluded within six months, so I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

9. However, the learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within the stipulated time as fixed by the trial Court.

(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J) Brajesh Kumar/- U T