Patna High Court
Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Yadav @ Jhapo Yadav @ Ajay Kumar YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The bail application was denied as the trial had commenced and no new ground for relief was shown.
Summary
The appellant, Ajay Kumar, was charged under several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Arms Act and the SC/ST Act for offences alleged in PS Case No. 79 of 2024. He applied for regular bail for the third time after earlier applications were rejected by the High Court. The court examined a trial report showing that only one of ten prosecution witnesses had been examined and that the trial was likely to conclude within a year. The appellant argued that he had been in judicial custody since January 2025 without antecedents and that the trial was not imminent, warranting bail. The State relied on a Supreme Court decision (X v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC Online SC 3539) stating that bail is ordinarily denied once trial commences in serious offences. The High Court found no new ground for relief, noted that the trial had indeed commenced, and therefore rejected the bail application, directing the lower court to expedite the trial within five months, with a provision to re‑apply thereafter.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the appellant despite the commencement of trial in a serious offence case.
- Whether the appellant's prolonged pre‑trial custody and lack of criminal antecedents justify bail.
- Whether the Supreme Court precedent in X v. State of Rajasthan is applicable to deny bail in the present case.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(1), 109, 190, 191(2), 191(3)
- SC/ST Act — s. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- serious offences
- trial commencement
- SC/ST Act
- Arms Act
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- pre‑trial detention
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.986 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-79 Year-2024 Thana- SIRARI District- Sheikhpura
======================================================
Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Yadav @ Jhapo Yadav @ Ajay Kumar Yadav Son of
Late Yadu Yadav @ Late Yaddu Yadav Resident of Village- Mahsar, P.O.-
Bhadauns, P.S.- Sirari, District- Sheikhpura (Bihar)
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sunita Devi Wife of Shiv Shankar Mahto @ Shiv Shankar Mahto Resident
of Village- Mahsar, P.S.- Sirari and District- Sheikhpura
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Nilendu Kumar Choudhary, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Binay Krishna, SPP
For the Informant : Mr. Anish Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
4 15-05-2026 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 18.02.2026, passed by learned District
and Additional Sessions Judge-1st-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST
Act, Sheikhpura whereby the prayer for bail of the appellant in
connection with Sirari PS Case No. 79 of 2024 under Sections
191(2), 191(3), 190, 109 & 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3(1)(r)
(s) & 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act was rejected.
3. This is the third attempt of the appellant for bail.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.986 of 2026(4) dt.15-05-2026
2/3
The appellant has renewed his prayer for grant of regular bail
which was earlier rejected on merit by this Court vide order
dated 11.09.2025, passed in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 2244 of 2025,
taking into account specific and heinous nature of the allegation
against the appellant. Again vide order dated 22.01.2026, passed
in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 4770 of 2025, regular bail of the
appellant was dismissed as withdrawn.
4. In compliance of the order dated 10.04.2026, a
report dated 17.04.2026, with regard to the present stage of trial
has been received. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it
appears that one (1) out of ten (10) prosecution witness is
examined in this case. It is further reported that trial is likely to
be concluded within a period of one year.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 27.01.2025,
without any rhymes or reason, having no criminal antecedent.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no
likelihood of the trial being concluded in the near future, hence,
petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
6. Learned SPP for the State and learned counsel for
the Informant opposes the prayer for grant of bail. Learned APP
has further relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.986 of 2026(4) dt.15-05-2026
3/3
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.”
7. There is no new ground to consider the bail petition
of the petitioner. From the aforesaid report, it appears that the
trial has commenced.
8. In view of the above, the prayer for bail of the
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 five months from today. If the trial
is not concluded within the period of five months, as stated
above, the appellant will be at liberty to renew his prayer before
the court below.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Raj Kishore/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.