Patna High Court
SUBODH SINGH @ SUBODH KUMARversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
Holding
The appeal is misconceived and cannot set aside the discharge order; bail is not granted and the trial must proceed.
Summary
The appellant, Subodh Singh, appealed against an order dated 22 July 2022 of the Special Judge which discharged him under Section 227 of the CrPC in a case involving multiple IPC offences, SC/ST Act violations and the Arms Act. He sought bail, claiming innocence and alleging that co‑accused had implicated him. The Special Public Prosecutor argued that the order pertained only to discharge and that the appellant was seeking bail after that order. The Patna High Court observed that the appeal contained no ground to set aside the discharge order and was therefore misconceived. Consequently, the court rejected the bail application and directed the trial court to expedite the trial, citing a recent Supreme Court judgment. The application was disposed of without granting bail.
Issues considered
- Can the order of discharge under Section 227 CrPC be set aside by this appeal?
- Is the appellant entitled to bail pending trial despite multiple criminal antecedents?
- Is the appeal maintainable when it does not specifically challenge the discharge order?
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 227
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 186, 307, 324, 326, 332, 333, 34, 341, 353
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(2)(n), 3(i)(r)(s)
Subjects
- bail
- discharge under CrPC
- trial delay
- SC/ST Act
- criminal antecedents
- appeal misconceived
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.864 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-466 Year-2019 Thana- NAGAR District- Vaishali
======================================================
SUBODH SINGH @ SUBODH KUMAR S/O ISHWARI PRASAD SINGH
R/v- Chistipur, P.S.- Chandi, District- Nalanda
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Bijay Kumar Palo Singh Village and Post-Khurhadih, P.S.- Barhia, Dist-
Lakhisarai,
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Shivanand Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Usha Kumari 1, Spl. PP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
11 26-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
Special P.P. for the State.
2. The appellant, in the present case, is seeking setting
aside of the order dated 22.07.2022 passed by learned Special
Judge, SC/ST Vaishali at Hajipur in connection with SC/ST
(GR) Case No. 2778 of 2019 arising out of Hajipur Town P.S.
Case No. 466 of 2019 registered for the offence under Sections
341, 186, 307, 324, 326, 332, 333, 353, 120B/34 of the Indian
Penal Code and Section 3(i)(r)(s) and 3(2)(n) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and
Section 27 of the Arms Act. The appellant has got 13 criminal
antecedents.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.864 of 2023(11) dt.26-02-2026
2/4
3. Earlier, the prayer for bail of the appellant was
rejected by this Court vide order dated 26.10.2021 passed in Cr.
Appeal (SJ) No. 3622 of 2021 after noticing that the appellant
had not disclosed the complete criminal antecedents and his
Lawyers sought to withdraw from the case as according to them,
they were not properly briefed. Appellant has declared in
paragraph '3' of the appeal that he has got 13 cases besides four
others in which he claims that he had never been made accused
in those four cases. It is stated that in some of the cases, he has
been acquitted.
4. It appears from his own averments that he is
accused in several cases across the country on the allegation that
he has been involved in similar offences in other localities.
5. In the present case, as per the First Information
Report lodged by the Hajat In-charge of Town P.S., Hajipur, one
under-trial prisoner Manish Kumar Singh was shot at when he
was taken to the court of learned A.C.J.M.-III for his
production. It is alleged that Havaldar Raj Kishore Singh,
Havaldar Poshan Paswan and prisoner Manish Kumar Singh
were shot at by unknown criminals.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.864 of 2023(11) dt.26-02-2026
3/4
only due to suspicion. He is in judicial custody since 30.09.2020
and in the meantime, the co-accused Vicky Kumar @ Vicky
Singh and Kunal Kumar Singh @ Kunal Kumar on whose
confession name of the appellant transpired, has already been
granted bail by this Court.
7. On the other hand, learned Special Public
Prosecutor for the State submits that from the impugned order of
the learned Special Judge, it would appear that the impugned
order relates to the prayer of the appellant for his discharge
under section 227 CrPC. In this Court, the appellant is giving an
impression as if he has been refused to be enlarged on bail,
therefore, he should be granted bail after setting aside the
impugned order.
8. This Court finds substance in the submissions of
learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State. The impugned
order dated 22.07.2022 is an order passed on the discharge
application of the appellant. In the appeal filed before this
Court, there is no pleading, submission or ground for setting
aside of the impugned order, but the prayer is to enlarge the
appellant on bail after setting aside the impugned order.
9. This appeal seems to be wholly misconceived.
10. This Court has been informed that the trial is not
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.864 of 2023(11) dt.26-02-2026
4/4
progressing with adequate pace. In the aforesaid view of the
matter, while rejecting the prayer for bail of the appellant, the
trial court is directed to proceed with the trial keeping in view
the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of The Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Mir Usman @
Ara @ Mir Usman Ali passed in Special Leave to Appeal
(Crl.) No(s). 969 of 2025 and conclude the trial as early as
possible.
11. This application stands disposed of accordingly.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
rishik/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.