Patna High Court
Rakesh Kumar @ Rakesh MehtaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The bail application was rejected.
Summary
The petitioner, Rakesh Kumar, was charged under Sections 302 and 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1‑B)(a), 26 and 27 of the Arms Act for alleged murder and conspiracy involving firearms. He applied for bail for the third time after earlier bail pleas were rejected and the trial court was directed to expedite the trial. The trial is currently at the prosecution evidence stage with nine prosecution witnesses examined, and the lower court expects to conclude the trial within six to eight months. The Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the offences and the progress of the trial. The High Court, noting the earlier rejections and the fact that substantial prosecution evidence has been recorded, declined the bail application and ordered the trial to proceed on a day‑to‑day basis, aiming for completion within six months.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused facing murder, criminal conspiracy, and arms offences at the stage where prosecution evidence has been largely recorded.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-B)(a), 26, 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 302, 34
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- criminal conspiracy
- Arms Act
- high court
- trial stage
- pre‑trial detention
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11021 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-136 Year-2023 Thana- BARARI District- Katihar
======================================================
Rakesh Kumar @ Rakesh Mehta son of Prakash Mehta @ Jai Prakash Singh
Resident of village- Gandhigram, PS- Barari, District- Katihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Bhola Prasad, Advocate
Mr. Akhauri Kamal Kishore Sahay, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Nirmal Kumar Sinha, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
4 18-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with ST-
653/2023, arising out of Barari P.S. Case No.136 of 2023, for
the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120B/34 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1-B)(a), 26 and 27 of the
Arms Act.
3. This is the third attempt of the petitioner for grant
of bail. Earlier vide detailed order dated 23.01.2024 passed by a
Bench of this Court in Cr. Misc. No.65535 of 2023 and order
dated 28.11.2025 passed by this Court in Cr. Misc. No.56087 of
2025, the prayer for bail of the petitioner had been rejected.
However, while rejecting the prayer for bail of the petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11021 of 2026(4) dt.18-03-2026
2/3
vide order dated 23.01.2024, the learned Trial Court was
directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as soon as
possible.
4. The present application has been filed renewing the
prayer for bail on the ground that the trial has not been
concluded as yet.
5. By order dated 18.02.2026, a report was called for
from the learned Court below regarding the stage of the trial and
the time likely to be taken in conclusion of the trial. In
compliance of the same, the learned Court below has sent a
report dated 23.02.2026 in which, inter alia, it is stated that
presently the case is pending at the stage of prosecution
evidence and nine prosecution witnesses have been examined.
The report further reveals that the trial of this case is likely to be
concluded expeditiously, after the examination of the witnesses,
within a period of six to eight months.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
opposes the prayer for bail considering the allegations and the
stage of the case.
7. Taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the
prayer for bail was earlier rejected by a Bench of this Court and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11021 of 2026(4) dt.18-03-2026
3/3
also by this Court on merits, I find no reason to take a different
view, especially on the background of the fact that nine
prosecution witnesses have already been examined, coupled
with the fact that there is direct allegation of opening fire
causing death of the deceased.
8. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is
hereby once again rejected. However, the learned Trial Court is
directed to hold the trial on day to day basis and conclude the
same preferably within a period of six months.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
Trivedi/-
U T
Checking your session…