Patna High Court
Rahul Pandey@Rahul Kr. Pandey@ Aditya Kr. Pandey@Aditya Pandey@Ramu kr. Pandey@Ramu PandeyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SHAILENDRA SINGH
Holding
The Court granted regular bail to the petitioner, subject to a bond and specific conditions.
Summary
Rahul Pandey was arrested in connection with offences under sections 318(4), 352, 109(1), 3(5) of the Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act and section 27 of the Arms Act. He applied for regular bail after a previous bail application was rejected, citing that the trial court had issued both bailable and non‑bailable warrants for the appearance of prosecution witnesses who never turned up. The State opposed bail but acknowledged the steps taken by the trial court to secure witness attendance. The High Court noted the prosecution’s persistent failure to produce witnesses and the petitioner’s prolonged custody of about one year. Considering these factors, the Court granted bail on a bond of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties and imposed conditions regarding trial attendance and non‑interference with evidence. The bail order was issued with the expectation that the petitioner will cooperate fully with the trial process.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail should be granted despite the earlier rejection of the bail application.
- Whether the prosecution’s failure to produce witnesses and the petitioner’s long pre‑trial custody justify granting bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 109(1), 318(4), 3(5), 352
Subjects
- regular bail
- prosecution witnesses
- non‑appearance of witnesses
- Arms Act
- criminal procedure
- custody
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15050 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-90 Year-2025 Thana- MUFFASIL District- West Champaran
======================================================
Rahul Pandey @ Rahul Kr. Pandey@ Aditya Kr. Pandey @ Aditya Pandey @
Ramu kr. Pandey @ Ramu Pandey, Son of Satendra Pandey, Resident of
Village -Khairatiya P.S.- Manuapul District -West Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sujeet Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Abhay Kumar Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Sonu Singh, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Binod Kumar No.3, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 25-02-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned APP for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with
Bettiah Muffasil P.S. Case No. 90 of 2025, registered for the
offence(s) punishable under Section(s) 318(4), 352, 109(1) and
3(5) of the BNS and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The main submissions advanced by petitioner's
counsel are that this is the second attempt of the petitioner to get
the relief of bail and his prayer was rejected vide order dated
06.08.2025 Passed in Cr. Misc. No. 32736 of 2025 giving the
petitioner a liberty to renew his prayer after the examination of
the injured in the trial and in the light of this liberty the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15050 of 2026(2) dt.25-02-2026
2/3
petitioner has renewed his prayer. Learned counsel further
submits that upon the petitioner the charges were framed on
26.08.2025 and thereafter bailable warrant for appearance of the
prosecution witnesses has been issued on 01.11.2025.
Thereafter, on 26.11.2025, non-bailable warrant has also been
issued for appearance of the prosecution witnesses but no one
turned up and then the trial court sent a letter to the
Superintendent of Police and Deputy Inspector General on
03.01.2026 for ensuring the appearance of the prosecution
witnesses but no one has turned up till date in the trial of the
petitioner which shows the lingering attitude of the prosecution
to frustrate the petitioner's bail prayer.
4. Though, learned APP appearing for the State has
opposed the bail prayer of the petitioner but fairly accepts that
sufficient steps have been taken by the trial court to get the
appearance of the prosecution witnesses as mentioned by the
petitioner in his petition and also appearing from the trial court's
rejection order.
5. Heard both the sides and perused relevant
materials. Though, the petitioner's prayer for bail has already
been rejected on merit but considering the prosecution's
lingering attitude in producing and examining the prosecution
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15050 of 2026(2) dt.25-02-2026
3/3
witnesses as stated above and as appearing from the trial court's
order and also taking note of the petitioner's custody period
which has been about one year, this court is now inclined to
release him on bail. Accordingly, let the petitioner named-above
be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of the concerned Court in connection
with Bettiah Muffasil P.S. Case No. 90 of 2025 with following
conditions:-
(1) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall
be properly represented on each and every date
fixed by the trial court and shall remain physically
present as directed by the trial court and on his
absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the trial
court.
(2) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or
influences the witnesses, in that case the prosecution
will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.
(3) One of the bailors shall be a close relative of the
petitioner who has sworn affidavit in this
miscellaneous petition.
(Shailendra Singh, J)
Rajiv/-
U T
Checking your session…