Patna High Court

Rupesh Mehta @ Rupesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 18 March 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: R P MISHRA

Holding

The bail petition was dismissed as there was no fresh ground and the trial was at an advanced stage.

Summary

Rupesh Mehta was arrested in connection with a case involving offences under Sections 307, 302, 394/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. He applied for bail, but the High Court had earlier rejected regular bail, directing the trial court to expedite the trial. A subsequent report showed that 13 of 15 charge‑sheet witnesses had been examined and the trial was expected to conclude within three months. The petitioner argued that he had been in judicial custody since 25‑05‑2023 without justification, while the State opposed bail. The Court found no fresh ground to revisit the bail issue, noted the advanced stage of trial, and again denied bail, directing the lower court to finish the trial within three months, with a provision to renew the bail petition thereafter.

Issues considered

Whether bail can be granted at an advanced stage of trial for offences of murder, attempt to murder, dacoity and illegal possession of arms.
Whether the progress of the trial provides sufficient ground to reject the bail petition.

Legislation cited

Arms Act — s. 27
Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 307, 34, 394

Subjects

bail
criminal procedure
murder
attempt to murder
arms act
judicial custody
trial expeditious

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15086 of 2026
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-197 Year-2023 Thana- RAGHOPUR District- Supaul
                 ======================================================
                 Rupesh Mehta @ Rupesh Kumar Son of Rameshwar Mehta Resident of
                 village- Satan Patti, Ps- Ratanpura, Dist- Supaul.
                                                                           ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                    ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr.Arvind Kumar, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr.Umeshanand Pandit, A.P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
                 MISHRA
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   18-03-2026               Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP

                   for the State.

                             2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with S.Tr. No.

                   453 of 2023, arising out of Raghopur P.S. Case No. 197 of 2023,

                   instituted for the offences under Sections 307, 302 and 394/34

                   of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

                             3. Earlier vide order dated 16.01.2024 passed in Cr.

                   Misc. No. 81511 of 2023, regular bail of the petitioner was

                   rejected by this Court considering the nature of allegation with a

                   direction to the learned trial Court to expedite the trial and

                   conclude the same as soon as possible.

                             4. In compliance of the order dated 25.02.2026, a report

                   dated 07.03.2026 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.15086 of 2026(3) dt.18-03-2026
                                                       2/2




                     that out of 15 Chargesheet witnesses, 13 witnesses, including

                     the informant have been examined and cross-examined and rest

                     two witnesses are to be examined in this case. It is further

                     reported that trial would be concluded within three months.

                              5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                     petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 25.05.2023

                     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. 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 three months from today. If the

                     trial is not concluded within the period of three 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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…