Patna High Court
Vidyapati SahversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The bail petition is dismissed; the petitioner must remain in custody while the trial is expedited within two months.
Summary
The petitioner, Vidyapati Sah, filed a bail application in a case registered under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The High Court had earlier rejected regular bail on 24 July 2025, citing the seriousness of the offence and the petitioner’s involvement, and directed the trial court to expedite the trial. A progress report indicated that the charge was framed on 10 September 2025 and that prosecution witnesses had been examined, with the trial expected to conclude within two months. The petitioner argued that he had been in judicial custody since 7 January 2025 without justification, while the State opposed bail. The Court found no fresh ground to revisit the earlier decision, rejected the bail petition again, and ordered the trial to be completed within two months, allowing the petitioner to renew the bail application thereafter.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate decision on the bail application given the stage of trial and the nature of the offences under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023?
- Whether any fresh ground exists to grant bail after the earlier rejection?
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(1), 3(5)
Subjects
- bail
- judicial custody
- expedited trial
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- criminal procedure
- section 103
- section 3
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13524 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-5 Year-2025 Thana- AURAI District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Vidyapati Sah S/O Prahlad Sah @ Pralad Sah Village- Mahrauli, P.S.- Aurai,
Distt.- Muzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shashank Shekhar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Anil Kumar Singh No. 1, S.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
3 10-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP
for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sessions
Trial No. 440 of 2025, arising out of Aurai P.S. Case No. 05 of
2025, instituted for the offences under Sections 103(1) and 3(5)
of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. Earlier, vide order dated 24.07.2025 passed in Cr.
Misc. No. 22333 of 2025, regular bail of the petitioner was
rejected by this Court considering the nature and gravity of the
offence and involvement of the petitioner in the commission of
the offence with direction to the learned trial Court to expedite
the trial as expeditiously as possible without any undue delay
and unnecessary adjournments.
4. In compliance of the order dated 25.02.2026, a report
dated 13.03.2026 with regard to the present stage of trial has
been received. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it appears
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13524 of 2026(3) dt.10-04-2026
2/2
that on 10.09.2025, Charge has been framed against the accused
persons. After issuance of summons against the prosecution
witnesses, four witnesses including informant have been
examined. It is further reported that the case may be disposed
of within next two months, if witnesses will be produced
regularly on behalf of the prosecution.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 07.01.2025
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.
8. In view of the above and considering the stage of the
trial / case, 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)
manish/-
U T
Checking your session…