Suman Kumar @ Rakesh Kumar @ Rakesh Roy v. The State of Bihar
CR. MISC./38492/2026 · 2026-08-13
Anshuman
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 29191 (PAT) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 29191 (PAT) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38492 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-229 Year-2025 Thana- KHAJANCHI HAT District- Purnia ====================================================== Suman Kumar @ Rakesh Kumar @ Rakesh Roy S/o Sri Bugo Prasad Mandal Resident of Mohalla - Prabhat Colony, P.S.- K. Hat, Distt.- Purnea ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amit Kumar Anand, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Mohammad Sufyan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 3 13-08-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Sessions Trial No. 531 of 2025/CIS No. 531 of 2025 arising out of K. Hat P.S. Case No. 229 of 2025 lodged on 08.06.2025, for the offence punishable under Section 103(1) of the BNS, 2023, pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Purnea.
3. As per the prosecution, FIR has been lodged against the sole petitioner with allegation that he has killed his wife, who died in front of her son.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He submits that though, allegation in the FIR appears to be heinous, but
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38492 of 2026(3) dt.13-08-2026 2/2 evidence has been completed and no material has come in the evidence. Counsel submits that stage of 313 Cr.P.C. has also crossed. He further submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent and he is in custody since 09.06.2025 and only one year has lapsed.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that a direction may be made to the trial court to conclude the trial within a stipulated period of time.
6. In the present facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at present. Accordingly, the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected at present.
7. The Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial at the earliest.
Divyansh/- (Dr. Anshuman, J) U T