Patna High Court
Tinku KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
Bail was denied, and the trial was ordered to be expedited within two months, with a provision to renew the bail application thereafter.
Summary
The petitioner, Tinku Kumar, was charged under Sections 366A, 365 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code for alleged rape offences. He applied for bail for the third time, arguing that the trial had only reached the stage of charge framing with no witness examination and that he had been in judicial custody since September 2023. The State opposed bail, relying on a 2024 Supreme Court decision that bail should rarely be granted once trial commences in serious offences. The Patna High Court held that there were no fresh grounds for bail and, since the trial had already started, refused the application. The court directed the lower court to expedite the trial and complete it within two months, allowing the petitioner to renew his bail plea if the trial is not concluded within that period.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted when the trial has commenced but no witnesses have been examined and there is a delay in trial completion.
- Whether the Supreme Court precedent in X vs. State of Rajasthan (2024) bars bail in serious offences once trial begins.
- Whether the petitioner has any fresh ground to justify bail after previous rejections.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 164
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 365, 366A
Subjects
- bail
- rape
- serious offences
- trial delay
- expeditious trial
- IPC
- CrPC
- high court
- bail jurisprudence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11634 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-559 Year-2017 Thana- NAGAR District- Vaishali
======================================================
Tinku Kumar S/o Late Chulhai Ray Resident of Village- Litiyahi, Police
Station- Ganga Bridge, Dist.- Vaishali
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sweety Sinha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rana Randhir Singh, 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 Hajipur
Town P.S. Case No. 559 of 2017 instituted for the offences
under Sections 366A, 365, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Earlier vide order dated 20.09.2024 passed in Cr.
Misc. No. 13281 of 2024 and again vide order dated 02.09.2025
passed in Cr. Misc. No. 46224 of 2025, regular bail of the
petitioner was rejected by this Court twice, considering the
material against the petitioner as also Section 164 Cr.P.C.
statement of the victim.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11634 of 2026(3) dt.03-04-2026
2/4
4. In compliance of the order dated 13.02.2026 a report
dated 10.03.2026 with regard to the present stage of trial has
been received. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it appears
that none of the witnesses have been examined and only charges
have been framed. It is further reported that trial is likely to be
concluded in six months.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is
the third application of the petitioner for grant of bail filed in the
light of the liberty granted by this Court vide order dated
02.09.2025 in Cr. Misc. No. 46224 of 2025 to renew the prayer
of bail after a period of five months if the trial is not concluded.
He further submits that none of the witnesses has been
examined as yet and only charge has been framed and there is
no likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future. He further
submits that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody
since 02.09.2023 without any rhymes or reason.
6. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
grant of bail. Learned APP for the State relied upon a decision
of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC
3539 (X. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.), wherein in paragraph
no. 14, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held has under:
“14. Ordinarily in serious offences like rape,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11634 of 2026(3) dt.03-04-2026
3/4
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 fresh ground to consider the bail petition
of the petitioner and since the trial has commenced, this Court is
not inclined to grant bail to 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 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
the court below.
9. The District Magistrate, Vaishali and the
Superintendent of Police, Vaishali are directed to ensure the
presence of the witnesses before the learned court below as and
when required for the expeditious conclusion of the trial within
the stipulated time.
10. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
District Magistrate, Vaishali and the Superintendent of Police,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11634 of 2026(3) dt.03-04-2026
4/4
Vaishali for compliance.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Alok Verma/-
U T
Checking your session…