Patna High Court

Sunil Kumar @ Sunil MahtoversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 18 March 2026
Disposal: DISMISSED
Bench: R P MISHRA

Holding

The bail petition was dismissed as there were no fresh grounds, and the trial was ordered to be expedited.

Summary

The appellants, Sunil Kumar and Rama Shankar Kumar, were convicted under IPC sections 302, 120B, 201, 34 and SC/ST Act section 3(2)(v) and were denied bail by the Special Judge. They appealed to the Patna High Court, arguing that they had been in judicial custody for over two and a half years without justification. The State and the informant opposed the bail. The Court found no fresh ground to revisit the bail decision and noted that the trial was ongoing at an advanced stage. Consequently, the Court upheld the lower court's refusal of bail and directed the trial court to conclude the trial within one month, allowing a fresh bail application thereafter.

Issues considered

Whether the appellants are entitled to bail despite prolonged pre‑trial detention
Whether there are any fresh grounds to reconsider the earlier bail denial
Whether the trial delay warrants a direction for expedited conclusion

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 201, 302, 34
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(2)(v)

Subjects

bail
pre‑trial detention
trial delay
IPC
SC/ST Act
criminal procedure
special judge

Judgment

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                  CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4360 of 2025
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-73 Year-2023 Thana- PUNAURA District- Sitamarhi
                 ======================================================
           1.     Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Mahto S/O Rajendra Mahto R/v Janki Asthan, Purani
                  Math, Ward No.- 08, P.s- Sitamarhi, Dist.- Sitamarhi
           2.    Rama Shankar Kumar @ Rama S/O Late Lakshmi Mahto R/v Janki Asthan,
                 Purani Math, Ward No.- 08, P.s- Sitamarhi, Dist.- Sitamarhi
                                                                             .. ... Appellant/s
                                                    Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.     Neha Devi W/O Late Chintu Raut R/v Janki Asthan, Purani Math, Ward
                  No.- 08, P.s- Sitamarhi, Dist.- Sitamarhi
                                                                    ... ... Respondent/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Appellant/s     :        Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
                 For the Respondent/s    :        Mr. Binay Krishna, SPP
                 For the Informant       :        Ms. Divya Bharti, Advocate
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
                 MISHRA
                                       ORAL ORDER
5   18-03-2026                    Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned

                   counsel for the informant and learned SPP for the State.

                            2. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellants

                   against the order dated 21.06.2025 passed by learned 1 st

                   Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act,

                   Sitamarhi whereby the prayer for bail of the appellants in

                   connection with Punaura P.S. Case No. 73 of 2023 under

                   Sections 302, 120B, 201, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and

                   Sections 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act was rejected.

                            3. Earlier vide order dated 01.02.2024 passed in Cr.

                   Appeal (SJ) No. 4589 of 2023, regular bail of the appellants was

                   rejected by this Court on merit.
           Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4360 of 2025(5) dt.18-03-2026
                                                        2/2




                               4. In compliance of the order dated 09.01.2026, a report

                     dated 20.01.2026 with regard to the non-conclusion of the trial

                     has been received and the same is accepted.

                               5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the

                     appellants are languishing in judicial custody since 25.03.2023,

                     i.e. more than two and a half years without any rhymes or

                     reason.

                               6. Learned SPP for the State and learned counsel for the

                     informant oppose the prayer for grant of bail.

                               7. There is no fresh ground to consider the bail petition

                     of the appellants. 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

                     appellants is again rejected with a direction to the court below to

                     expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously

                     preferably within a period of one month from today. If the trial

                     is not concluded within the period of one month, as stated

                     above, the appellants will be at liberty to renew their prayer

                     before the court below.



                                           (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Alok Verma/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…