Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Suraj ChauhanversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL REJECTED

Holding

Bail is denied as there is no new ground to alter the earlier decision.

Summary

Suraj Chauhan was arrested on 2 May 2024 in connection with offences under Sections 342, 323, 376, 379 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. He filed a regular bail application, which had earlier been rejected by the High Court. In a second bail petition he argued that he has no criminal antecedent, has been in judicial custody for over two years, and that none of the eight prosecution witnesses have yet been examined, making trial unlikely to conclude soon. The State opposed the bail, and the Court observed that no new material ground was raised to revisit the earlier decision. Consequently, the Court rejected the bail petition and directed the trial court to complete the trial within six months, allowing the petitioner to re‑apply thereafter.

Issues considered

  • Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite prolonged pre‑trial detention and lack of trial progress.
  • Whether any new material fact or ground exists to merit a fresh consideration of bail after an earlier denial.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • pre‑trial detention
  • Indian Penal Code
  • Criminal Procedure Code
  • trial delay
  • judicial custody

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10272 of 2026
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-122 Year-2024 Thana- DURAULI District- Siwan
                 ======================================================
                 Suraj Chauhan S/o Kedar Chauhan Resident of Village- Piparahiyan, P.S.-
                 Darauli, District- Siwan


                                                                                  ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus



           1.    The State of Bihar

           2.    Pinki Devi W/o Ramu Chauhan Resident of Village- Piparahiyan, P.S.-
                 Darauli, District- Siwan

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Bharat Bhushan, APP
                 ======================================================

                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
                 MISHRA
                                    ORAL ORDER

3   03-04-2026             Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP

                   for the State.

                           2.       The petitioner seeks bail in connection with S.T.

                   No. 445 of 2024, arising out of Darauli P.S. Case No. 122 of

                   2024 instituted for the offences under Sections 342, 323, 376,

                   379 & 504 of the Indian Penal Code.

                           3.       This is the second attempt of the petitioner for bail.

                   The petitioner has renewed his prayer for grant of regular bail

                   which was earlier rejected on merit by this Court vide order
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10272 of 2026(3) dt.03-04-2026
                                            2/3




          dated 24.02.2025, passed in Cr. Misc. No. 83373 of 2024, taking

          into account the Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim.

                  4.       In compliance of the order dated 13.02.2026 a

          report dated 26.03.2026 with regard to the present stage of trial

          has been received. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it

          appears that out of eight prosecution witnesses, no witnesses

          have been examined till date.

                  5.       Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

          petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 02.05.2024

          without any rhymes or reason, having no criminal antecedent.

          Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no

          likelihood of the trial being concluded in the near future, hence,

          petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

                  6.       Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for

          grant of bail.

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

          of the petitioner.

                  8.       In view of the above, the prayer for bail of the

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

          expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously

          preferably within a period of six months from today. If the trial

          is not concluded within the period of six months, as stated
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10272 of 2026(3) dt.03-04-2026
                                                       3/3




                     above, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer before

                     the court below.


                                                                 (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)

Alok Verma/-

U      T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.