Patna High Court
Shivaji Pandit @ Shivjee PanditversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The bail petition is dismissed as there is no fresh ground and the trial is at an advanced stage.
Summary
The petitioner, Shivaji Pandit, was charged under IPC Sections 365 and 366A and Section 8 of the POCSO Act for alleged kidnapping and forced marriage of a minor. He applied for bail, having been in judicial custody since 22 September 2024. The High Court had earlier rejected regular bail, citing the seriousness of the allegations. A recent trial report indicated that five prosecution witnesses had been examined and the trial was expected to conclude within six months, showing it was at an advanced stage. The petitioner’s counsel argued that his continued detention lacked justification, while the State and the informant opposed bail. The Court found no fresh ground to revisit the bail issue and consequently denied the bail application, directing the lower court to expedite the trial within two months, with a provision to renew the bail plea if the trial is not concluded.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to the petitioner at an advanced stage of trial for offences under Sections 365, 366A IPC and Section 8 POCSO Act
- Whether any fresh ground exists to reconsider the earlier denial of bail
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 365, 366A
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 8
Subjects
- bail
- kidnapping for marriage
- POCSO
- judicial custody
- advanced stage of trial
- expedited trial
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13009 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-376 Year-2023 Thana- CHIRAIYA District- East Champaran
======================================================
Shivaji Pandit @ Shivjee Pandit S/O Late Gagan Pandit R/O Village- Ramban
Banuhara, P.S- Shyampur Bhatahan, Distt.- Sheohar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. X S/O Y R/O Village- Semara Sagardina, P.S- Chiriya, Dist.- East
Champaran.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhannjay Kumar II, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Humayou Ahmad Khan, Advocate
For the OP No.2 : Mr. Dhurendra Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
4 01-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Chiriya
P.S. Case No. 376 of 2023 arising out of P. Tr. No. 151 of 2024
instituted for the offences under Sections 365, 366A of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the POCSO Act.
3. Earlier, vide order dated 19.02.2025 passed in Cr.
Misc. No. 83357 of 2024, regular bail of the petitioner was
rejected by this Court considering the direct allegation of
enticing the victim and forcibly performing marriage against the
petitioner.
4. In compliance of the order dated 25.02.2026 a report
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13009 of 2026(4) dt.01-05-2026
2/2
dated 28.03.2026 with regard to the present stage of trial has
been received. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it appears
that five prosecution witnesses have been examined. It is further
reported that trial is likely to be concluded in six months.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 22.09.2024
without any rhymes or reason.
6. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the
informant opposed 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 an advance stage.
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.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Alok Verma/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.