Patna High Court
Akshay KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The appeal is dismissed; bail is not granted as there is no fresh ground and the trial is at an advanced stage.
Summary
The appellant, Akshay Kumar, was charged under IPC 302, the Arms Act 27 and the SC/ST Act 3(2)(v) for a murder‑related offence. He applied for regular bail, which was rejected by the Exclusive Sessions Judge and earlier dismissed by this Court. The appellant argued that he had been in judicial custody since February 2023 and that the trial was delayed, seeking bail on that ground. The State opposed, relying on a 2024 Supreme Court decision (X vs State of Rajasthan) that bail in serious offences should not be entertained once trial commences. The High Court found no fresh ground for relief, noted that the trial was at an advanced stage with most witnesses examined, and dismissed the appeal, directing the lower court to expedite the trial within two months and allowing a fresh bail application thereafter.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to an accused of serious offences (murder, arms, SC/ST) at an advanced stage of trial.
- Whether the appellant has any fresh ground for bail after earlier dismissal.
- Applicability of the Supreme Court precedent X vs State of Rajasthan (2024) to bail in serious offences.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(2)(v)
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- serious offence
- trial stage
- SC/ST Act
- Arms Act
- judicial custody
- expedited trial
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1945 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-28 Year-2023 Thana- BHAGWANPUR District- Begusarai
======================================================
Akshay Kumar Son of Ranjit Singh @ Ranjit Rai @ Ranjeet Ray Resident of
village -Dahiya PS -Bhagwanpur District- Begusarai
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Rinki Kumari Wife of Late Arjun Sada Resident of village -Dahiya PS
-Bhagwanpur District- Begusarai
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Mohit Shriwastava, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Usha Kumari 1, SPP
For the Informant : Mr. Anil Kumar Choudhary, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
4 05-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned SPP
for the State as also learned counsel for the informant.
2. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant
against the order dated 19.04.2025 passed by learned Exclusive
Sessions Judge, SC/ST (PoA) Act, Begusarai whereby the
prayer for bail of the appellant in connection with Bhagwanpur
PS Case No. 28 of 2023 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST
Act was rejected.
3. This is the second attempt of the appellant for bail.
The appellant has renewed his prayer for grant of regular bail
which was earlier dismissed on merit by this Court vide order
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1945 of 2025(4) dt.05-02-2026
2/4
dated 19.06.2025, passed in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 22 of 2025,
taking into account the nature of allegation which is serious as
also considering the fact that a country made pistol and a bullet
have been recovered from the appellant.
4. In compliance of the order dated 27.06.2025, a
report dated 09.07.2025 with regard to the present stage of trial
has been received. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it
appears that four (4) out of six (6) charge sheet witnesses have
been examined. It is further reported that only two official
witnesses i.e., Investigating Officer and Doctor are yet to be
examined.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 15.02.2023
without any rhymes or reason, having one criminal antecedent.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no
likelihood of the trial being concluded in the near future, hence,
appellant is entitled for bail.
6. Learned SPP for the State and learned counsel for
the informant opposes the prayer for grant of bail. Learned SPP
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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1945 of 2025(4) dt.05-02-2026
3/4
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.”
7. There is no new ground to consider the appeal of
the appellant, which is already decided by this Court on merit.
From the aforesaid report, it appears that the trial is going on
and is at an advance stage.
8. In view of the above, appeal is again dismissed,
with a direction to the court below to expedite the trial and
conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of
two months from today. If the trial is not concluded within the
period of two months, as stated above, the appellant will be at
liberty to renew his prayer before the court below.
9. The District Magistrate, Begusarai and the
Superintendent of Police, Begusarai are also directed to take
necessary steps to produce the witnesses on the date fixed in the
Trial Court so that the trial could be concluded within the
stipulated period.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1945 of 2025(4) dt.05-02-2026
4/4
10. Let this order be communicated to the District
Magistrate, Begusarai and the Superintendent of Police,
Begusarai.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Raj Kishore/-
U T
Checking your session…