IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11309 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-40 Year-2012 Thana- GHORASAHAN District- East Champaran ====================================================== 1. Sudhir Kumar Sah @ Sudhir Kumar Gupta @ sudhir Kumar Son of Mohichandra Sah Resident of village- Bhatiniya Ps -Ghorasahan District -East Champaran 2. Binod Prasad son of Late Sukhal Sah @ Sukhal Mahato Resident of village- Bhatiniya Ps -Ghorasahan District -East Champaran 3. Jitendra Prasad @ Jitendra Sinha son of Late Ram Prasad mahto Resident of village- Bhatiniya Ps -Ghorasahan District -East Champaran 4. Atmaram Prasad @ Atmaram Mahto son of Late Mahesh Mahto Resident of village- Bhatiniya Ps -Ghorasahan District -East Champaran 5. Bindeshwari Sah Son of Rajeshwar Sah Resident of village- Bhatiniya Ps -Ghorasahan District -East Champaran 6. Mahesh Mahto son of Rajendra Mahto Resident of village- Bhatiniya Ps -Ghorasahan District -East Champaran 7. Krishna Mahato @ Krishna Prasad Son of Mahanth Mahto Resident of village- Bhatiniya Ps -Ghorasahan District -East Champaran 8. Madho Sah @ Madhav Sah son of Mohichandra Sah Resident of village- Bhatiniya Ps -Ghorasahan District -East Champaran 9. Raja sah @ Raja Babu Kumar @ Rajababu Sah son of Mohichandra Sah Resident of village- Bhatiniya Ps -Ghorasahan District -East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 4 08-07-2026 Heard the parties. 2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Ghorasahan P.S. Case No. 40/2012 for the offence under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307, 506, 379 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11309 of 2026(4) dt.08-07-2026 2/2 and 327 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act lodged on 16.03.2012 by the informant, Vishwnath Sah. 3. At the outset, learned APP for the State submits that the matter is of the year 2012, despite being named, the petitioners have moved before this Court after fourteen long years. He has further taken this Court to the learned Sessions Judge order to show that the anticipatory bail application stood dismissed on 28.11.2025, still, three more months was taken to file the present petition. 4. Considering the aforesaid facts as also the delay in coming to the Court, no relief can be extended. 5. The anticipatory bail application stands rejected. Adnan/- (Rajiv Roy, J) U T