IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.48786 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-146 Year-2014 Thana- DANAPUR District- Patna ====================================================== Manish Kumar @ Monit Mahto @ Manit Mahto Son of Hari Prasad Mahto Resident of Nasriganj, Biscuit Factory More, Police Station - Danapur, District - Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Saumya, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Umeshanand Pandit, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 2 27-07-2026 This is the second attempt by the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail. The first petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 06.04.2015. After a lapse of about 11 years, the petitioner has again approached this Court, which clearly indicates that he was having knowledge of the pendency of the present case. 2. In view of the aforesaid facts and the unexplained delay of about 11 years, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition. 3. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed. (Ranjan Kumar Jha, J) rishabh/- U T

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.48786 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-146 Year-2014 Thana- DANAPUR District- Patna ====================================================== Manish Kumar @ Monit Mahto @ Manit Mahto Son of Hari Prasad Mahto Resident of Nasriganj, Biscuit Factory More, Police Station - Danapur, District - Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Saumya, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Umeshanand Pandit, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 2 27-07-2026 This is the second attempt by the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail. The first petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 06.04.2015. After a lapse of about 11 years, the petitioner has again approached this Court, which clearly indicates that he was having knowledge of the pendency of the present case. 2. In view of the aforesaid facts and the unexplained delay of about 11 years, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition. 3. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed. (Ranjan Kumar Jha, J) rishabh/- U T