Patna High Court
Ram BhagatversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
Bail was denied as there was no fresh ground and the trial was already at an advanced stage.
Summary
The appellant, Ram Bhagat, was charged under IPC sections 302 and 34 and under the SC/ST Act sections 3(i)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v) for a murder case (Case No. 278 of 2023). He had been denied bail by the Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court earlier, with a liberty to renew after one year. The appellant filed a criminal appeal seeking bail, arguing he had been in custody since July 2023 and had no prior criminal record. The court observed that the trial was at an advanced stage, with five of eight witnesses already examined and bailable warrants issued for the remaining witnesses, and found no fresh ground to grant bail. Consequently, the bail petition was rejected, and the court directed the trial court to conclude the trial within two months, allowing the appellant to renew his bail application if the trial is not completed within that period.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to the accused at an advanced stage of trial in a murder case under IPC and the SC/ST Act.
- Whether any fresh ground exists to justify the grant of bail after the earlier rejection.
- Whether the provisions of the SC/ST Act affect the bail considerations.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 34
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(2)(v), 3(i)(r)(s)
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- IPC
- SC/ST Act
- criminal appeal
- high court
- trial expeditious
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2547 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-278 Year-2023 Thana- MIRGANJ District- Gopalganj
======================================================
Ram Bhagat S/o Hawa Singh R/o vill - Sultanpur (138), Hisar, P.S.- Hasi,
Distt.- Hisar (Haryana)
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sunita Devi W/o Late Motilal Sah R/o Mirganj South Mohalla, ward no. 22,
P.S.- Mirganj, Distt.- Gopalganj
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Arvind Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Binay Krishna, S.P.P
Mr. Harendra Prasad Singh, 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/Respondent No. 2.
2. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant
against the order dated 04.06.2025 passed by Addl. Sessions
Judge-XI-cum- Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Gopalganj,
whereby the prayer for bail of the appellant in connection with
Mirganj P.S. Case No. 278 of 2023 under Section 302/34 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 3(i)(r)(s), 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST
Act was rejected.
3. Earlier vide order dated 21.03.2024 passed in Cr.
Appeal (SJ) No. 4896 of 2023, regular bail of the appellant was
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2547 of 2025(5) dt.29-01-2026
2/3
rejected by this Court considering the dying declaration of the
deceased and taking into account the postmortem report, with a
liberty to renew the prayer after one year, if the trial is not
concluded.
4. In compliance of the order dated 14.10.2025, a report
dated 13.11.2025 with regard to the present stage of trial has
been received. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it appears
that case is fixed for evidence after framing of charge vide order
dated 18.12.2023. Out of 08 witnesses, 05 witnesses have been
examined and remaining three witnesses have to be examined. It
is further reported that bailable warrant have already been
issued by the Court against rest Charge-sheet witnesses.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant is in custody since 21.07.2023 and has no criminal
antecedent.
6. Learned Special P.P. for the State and the informant
have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the
appellant.
7. There is no fresh ground to consider the bail petition
of the appellant. From the aforesaid report, it appears that the
trial is going on and is at an advance stage.
8. In view of the above, the prayer for bail of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2547 of 2025(5) dt.29-01-2026
3/3
appellant is again rejected with a direction to the court below to
expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously
preferably within a period of two month from today. If the trial
is not concluded within the period of two months, the appellant
will be at liberty to renew his prayer before the court below.
9. The Director, Health Department, Bihar is hereby
directed to produce the official witnesses namely Dr. Rekha
Kumari, Director FSL, Muzaffarpur and Dr. Jitendra Kumar,
Assistant Director, within a period of two months to conclude
the trial.
10. Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the Director,
Health Department, Bihar.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
manish/-
U T
Checking your session…