Patna High Court
Rajesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
Bail was denied to the appellant as the trial is at an advanced stage and the offences are serious.
Summary
The appellant, Rajesh Kumar, was charged with murder, conspiracy (IPC §§302, 120(B)/34) and illegal possession of arms (Arms Act §27) for allegedly orchestrating the killing of the informant's son. He sought bail, claiming innocence and that his name surfaced only through a co-accused's confessional statement, which he argued lacked evidentiary value, and that no SC/ST offence was made out. The prosecution, supported by the Special Public Prosecutor and the informant, contended that the appellant was a principal conspirator, citing statements of co-accused and witness testimony, and relied on a Supreme Court precedent discouraging bail in serious offences at an advanced trial stage. The High Court examined the gravity of the offences, the advanced stage of the trial, and the precedent, and concluded that bail could not be granted. Consequently, the appeal against the bail denial was dismissed, with directions to expedite the trial and a provision to re‑apply for bail after three months if the trial remains pending.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused of murder, conspiracy and arms offences when the trial is at an advanced stage.
- Whether the confessional statements of co‑accused provide sufficient basis to deny bail.
- Whether the alleged non‑use of the informant's caste name negates any offence under the SC/ST Act.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120(B), 302, 34
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- conspiracy
- IPC
- Arms Act
- SC/ST Act
- high court
- trial stage
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4092 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-141 Year-2024 Thana- KATIHAR NAGAR District- Katihar
======================================================
Rajesh Kumar S/O Sachidanand Singh @ Sachindra Singh R/O Village-
Chawklibari, P.S- Muffasil, Distt.- Purnea.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Dinesh Paswan S/O Late Gorelal Paswan R/O Driver Tola, P.S- Nagar, Dist.-
Katihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Bhola Prasad, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna, SPP
For the Informant : Ms. Moni Kumari, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
3 05-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Special
Public Prosecutor for the State, learned counsel for the
informant/Respondent No. 2 and perused the case diary.
2. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant
against the order dated 21.05.2025 passed by learned District
and Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge SC/ST,
Katihar whereby the prayer for bail of the appellant in
connection with Katihar Nagar P.S. Case No. 141 of 2024 under
Sections 302, 120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section
27 of the Arms Act was rejected.
3. Prosecution case, in short, is that, informant’s son was
shot dead and one accused was caught. It is further alleged that
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4092 of 2025(3) dt.05-02-2026
2/4
a conspiracy for murder was hatched by the appellant along with
other co-accused persons through hired killers.
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.
Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the appellant
is known to the informant and thus, it is admitted, as per the FIR
that there is no allegation of firing on the son of the informant. It
is further submitted that name of the appellant has transpired in
this case on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused,
namely, Bhaskar Jha and the same has got no evidentiary value,
wherein appellant’s role has surfaced as being liner. 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 22.02.2025 and has one criminal antecedent in
which he is on bail.
5. Learned Special P.P. for the State and the informant
have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the
appellant and submits that the allegation upon the appellant that
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4092 of 2025(3) dt.05-02-2026
3/4
he participated in the murder of the deceased along with other
co-accused persons. From perusal of confessional statement of
co-accused persons, it appears that the appellant along with
other co-accused persons conspired amongst themselves to kill
the deceased. From perusal of paragraph nos. 124 and 143 of the
case diary, it appears that the appellant along with others were
performing as liner. All the witnesses have supported the case of
prosecution. Hence, the appellant does not deserve the privilege
of bail. Other co-accused has been granted bail by this Court
vide order dated 03.07.2025, passed in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 735
of 2025. Learned counsel for the informant submits that two (2)
out of four (4) prosecution witnesses have been examined in this
case. Learned informant’s counsel 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.”
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4092 of 2025(3) dt.05-02-2026
4/4
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of
the case, specific allegation as also nature and gravity of the
offence and trial is at advance stage, this Court is not inclined to
grant bail to the appellant at this juncture.
7. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. The trial
Court is directed to expedite the trial. However, if the trial is not
concluded within a period of three months from the date of
receipt/production, the appellant will have liberty to renew his
prayer for bail in the Court below.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Raj Kishore/-
U T
Checking your session…