Patna High Court

Bhollu MiyanversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 3 April 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: R P MISHRA

Holding

The bail petition is rejected as no fresh ground exists and the trial is imminent.

Summary

The petitioner, Bhollu Miyan, was arrested in connection with a case registered under Sections 65(2), 351(2), 61(2), 191(2), 249(A) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act. He had earlier been denied regular bail after the court considered the victim's statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS and the gravity of the offences. The petitioner filed a fresh bail application, contending that he had been in judicial custody since 19‑08‑2024 without justification. The State opposed the bail, noting that the trial was nearing completion with all six witnesses examined and expected to conclude within two months. The court found no fresh ground to revisit the bail issue and again rejected the bail petition, directing the lower court to expedite the trial within two months, after which the petitioner may renew his bail application.

Issues considered

Whether bail can be granted at a stage when the trial is near conclusion and the offences are serious.
Whether the petitioner has raised any fresh ground to merit reconsideration of the earlier bail denial.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 191(2), 249(A), 351(2), 61(2), 65(2)
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 4, 6

Subjects

bail
criminal procedure
trial expeditious
victim statement
serious offences
POCSO
BNSS

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10662 of 2026
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-88 Year-2024 Thana- KRISHNAGARH District- Bhojpur
                 ======================================================
                 Bhollu Miyan S/o Mohammad Anaras Rayeen @ Mohammad Anaras Miyan
                 @ Ansu Miyan Resident of Village - Gundi, P.S - Krishnagarh (Barhara),
                 District - Bhojpur


                                                                                 ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus

           1.    The State of Bihar

           2.    Kusum Devi W/o Om Prakash Vishwakarma R/o Village - Gundi, P.s -
                 Krishnagarh (Barhara), District - Bhojpur


                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr. Ram Naresh Ray, APP
                 For the Informant        :      None
                 ======================================================
                 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. None appears on behalf of the informant

                   despite notice being validly served.

                             2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with

                   Krishnagarh P.S. Case No. 88 of 2024 instituted for the offences

                   under Sections 65(2), 351(2), 61(2), 191(2), 249(A) of the

                   Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4/6 of the POCSO

                   Act.

                             3. Earlier vide order dated 03.04.2025 passed in Cr.

                   Misc. No. 752 of 2025, regular bail of the petitioner was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10662 of 2026(3) dt.03-04-2026
                                            2/3




          rejected by this Court considering the Statement of the victim

          recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS as also the nature and

          gravity of offence.

                   4. In compliance of the order dated 13.02.2026 a report

          dated 23.2.2026 with regard to the present stage of trial has been

          received. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it appears that all

          the six witnesses have been examined. It is further reported that

          trial is likely to be concluded in two months.

                   5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

          petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 19.08.2024

          without any rhymes or reason.

                   6. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for

          grant of bail.

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

          of the petitioner. From the aforesaid report, it appears that the

          trial is going on and is at the verge of conclusion.

                   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 two months from today. If the trial

          is not concluded within the period of two months, as stated

          above, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer before
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10662 of 2026(3) dt.03-04-2026
                                                       3/3




                     the court below.



                                           (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Alok Verma/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…