Patna High Court
Abhay Kumar Singh @ Abhay KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The appeal was dismissed and bail was not granted at this stage.
Summary
The appellant, Abhay Kumar Singh, was charged in a violent incident where informant Mahendra Kumar Uraon was attacked, a person was shot dead and another injured, and armed criminals fired numerous rounds and set fire to tractors. The appellant contended he was merely a member of the mob with no specific allegation against him and denied any offence under the SC/ST Act. The State and the informant opposed bail, noting that the trial had already commenced with two witnesses examined and citing a Supreme Court precedent that bail is rarely granted in serious offences once trial begins. The High Court, considering the seriousness of the charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Arms Act and SC/ST Act, and the fact that trial was underway, dismissed the appeal and refused bail. The court directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings and allowed the appellant to reapply for bail if the trial is not concluded within four months of the order.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to the appellant in a case involving serious offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Arms Act and SC/ST Act after the trial has commenced.
- Whether the allegations against the appellant under the SC/ST Act are substantiated.
- Whether the appellant's participation as a member of the mob suffices to sustain the charges framed against him.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103, 109, 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 126(2), 191(2), 191(3), 324(4), 351(2), 351(3), 352
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- bail
- serious offences
- trial commencement
- SC/ST Act
- Arms Act
- mob violence
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- high court appeal
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1391 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-124 Year-2024 Thana- MANSAHI District- Katihar
======================================================
Abhay Kumar Singh @ Abhay Kumar S/o Gautam Singh R/o Pnda, P.S.-
Mansahi, Distt.- Katihar
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Mahendra Kumar Uraon S/o Late Chaudhary Uraon R/o Pinda, P.S.-
Mansahi, Distt.- Katihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Binay Krishna, SPP
For the Informant : Mr. Ravindra Kumar Sinha No.2, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
5 29-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Special
Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the
informant.
2. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellants
against the order dated 29-01-2025 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST, Children Court,
Katihar whereby the prayer for bail of the appellant in
connection with Mansahi PS Case No. 124 of 2024 under
Sections 126(2), 115(2), 324(4), 109, 118(1), 118(2), 103,
191(2), 191(3), 352, 351(2) & 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3(1)(r)
(s) & 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act was rejected.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1391 of 2025(5) dt.29-01-2026
2/4
3. Prosecution case, in short, is that the informant was
attacked while ploughing bataidari land when Govind Singh
abused and shot Baijnath Uraon, causing his death, while
Gautam Singh fired with both hands, injuring Jabna Uraon.
They also called 20-25 armed criminals who fired 60-70 rounds,
forcing the informant and others to flee. Govind and Gautam
further set fire to tractors after the attack.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the
present case. Charge-sheet has been submitted in this case.
There is no specific allegation against the appellant, rather the
same is against co-accused, namley, Govind Singh and Gautam.
The allegation against the appellant is general and omnibus in
nature. At best, appellant was the member of the mob. Learned
counsel for the appellant further submits that the appellant has
not taken the caste name of the informant in public view. Hence,
no offence under the provisions of SC/ST Act is made out
against him. The appellant has no intention to disgrace the
image of the informant in public view. The appellant is in
custody since 02-12-2024 and has no criminal antecedent. Other
co-accused has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated
07-08-2025, passed in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1005 of 2025.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1391 of 2025(5) dt.29-01-2026
3/4
5. Learned Special P.P. for the State and the informant
have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the
appellant. Bail of co-accused having specific allegation have
been rejected by this Court vide order dated 10-07-2025, passed
in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1438 of 2025 & Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1591
of 2025. It is next submitted that trial has commenced and two
witnesses have been examined in this case. Learned APP has
further relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court
reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3539 (X. vs. State of
Rajasthan & Anr.), wherein in paragraph No.14, Hon’ble Apex
Court has observed as under:
“14. Ordinarily in
serious offences like rape, murder,
dacoity, etc., once the trial
commences and the prosecution starts
examining its witnesses, the Court be
it the Trial Court or the High Court
should be loath in entertaining the
bail application of the accused.”
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case and specifically taking into account the fact that trial
has commenced, this Court, at this stage, is not inclined to allow
the appeal. Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
7. The Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1391 of 2025(5) dt.29-01-2026
4/4
expeditiously as possible without any undue delay and
unnecessary adjournments.
8. However, appellant will be at liberty to renew his
prayer for bail in the Court below, if the trial is not concluded
within a period of four months from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this order.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Raj Kishore/-
U T
Checking your session…