Patna High Court
Krishna Kumar @ Vikash Kumar @ Vikash Kumar PandeyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The court held that bail must be denied as the trial has already commenced and no new ground for relief was shown.
Summary
The petitioner, Krishna Kumar, was charged under Sections 103(1), 61(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act for alleged firing offences. He has been in judicial custody since 15 July 2024 and sought regular bail, having previously been denied bail by the same court. The petitioner argued that he has no prior criminal record and that no witnesses have been examined despite the trial commencing. The State opposed bail, relying on a Supreme Court decision (X v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3539) that cautions against granting bail once trial for serious offences has begun. The High Court found no new ground for relief, noted that the trial had indeed commenced, and consequently rejected the bail application, directing the lower court to expedite the trial within six months and allowing a future bail petition if the deadline is missed.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to an accused when the trial for serious offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Arms Act has already commenced.
- Whether the Supreme Court precedent in X v. State of Rajasthan (2024) is applicable to deny bail in the present case.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(1), 3(5), 61(2)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- serious offences
- trial commencement
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Arms Act
- high court
- precedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15590 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-117 Year-2024 Thana- BELCHHI District- Patna
======================================================
Krishna Kumar @ Vikash Kumar @ Vikash Kumar Pandey S/O Shrawan
Kumar Pandey @ Shrawan Pandey @ Vijay Krishna Pandey R/O village-
Gopalpur, PS- Belcchi, District- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pratyush Pratap Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Matloob Rab, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
2 11-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Belcchi P.S. Case No. 117 of 2024, instituted for the offences
under Sections 103(1), 61(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. This is the second attempt of the petitioner for bail.
The petitioner has renewed his prayer for grant of regular bail
which was earlier rejected by this Court vide order dated
06.05.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 6971 of 2025 taking into
consideration the nature and gravity of the offence as also there
being direct allegation of firing against the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15590 of 2026(2) dt.11-03-2026
2/3
petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 15.07.2024
without any rhymes or reason and has got no criminal
antecedent. It is further submitted that charge has already been
framed against the petitioner on 19.11.2025 and the trial has
commenced after framing of charge but no any witness has been
examined in this case.
5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed
the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. 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 as under:
“14. Ordinarily in serious offences like rape,
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.”
6. There is no new ground to consider the bail petition
of the petitioner. From the aforesaid submission, it appears that
the trial has commenced.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15590 of 2026(2) dt.11-03-2026
3/3
7. 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 preferably within a
period of six months from today. If the trial is not concluded
within the period of six months, as stated above, the petitioner
will be at liberty to renew his prayer before the court below.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Rajorshi/-
U T
Checking your session…