Patna High Court
Sintu Kumar @ Saltu KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
Bail was denied as the trial had commenced and no fresh ground for relief was established.
Summary
The petitioner, Sintu Kumar, was charged under Sections 302, 506/34, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act for a serious offence involving alleged firing. He applied for bail, having been in judicial custody since March 2024, after two earlier bail applications were rejected by the same court. The court noted that a report indicated nine charge‑sheeted witnesses had not yet been examined, showing that the trial had commenced. The State opposed bail, relying on a Supreme Court decision that courts should be loath to grant bail in serious offences once trial begins. The High Court found no fresh ground for bail, rejected the petition, and directed the lower court to complete the trial within four months, allowing a fresh bail application thereafter.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to an accused of serious offences when the trial has already commenced and no fresh ground is shown.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 302, 34, 506
Subjects
- bail
- serious offences
- murder
- criminal conspiracy
- arms act
- trial commencement
- high court
- expeditious trial
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16883 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-404 Year-2023 Thana- SAUR BAZAR District- Saharsa
======================================================
Sintu Kumar @ Saltu Kumar S/o Late Vinay Prasad Yadav @ Late Vinay
Yadav Resident of Village- Morkahi Ward No. 3, P.S.- Saurbazar (Pastpar
O.P.), Saharsa, District- Saharsa
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Kumar Veerendra Narayan, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
3 01-05-2026 Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with S.T. No.
145 of 2025 arising out of Saurbazar P.S. Case No. 404 of 2023
instituted for the offences under Sections 302, 506/34, 120B of
the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Earlier, vide order dated 27.09.2024 passed in Cr.
Misc. No. 50199 of 2024 and again vide order dated 20.06.2025
passed in Cr. Misc. No. 36022 of 2025, regular bail of the
petitioner was rejected twice by this Court considering the direct
allegation of firing against the petitioner.
4. In compliance of the order dated 11.03.2026 a report
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16883 of 2026(3) dt.01-05-2026
2/3
dated 08.04.2026 with regard to the present stage of trial has
been received. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it appears
that there are total nine charge-sheeted witnesses but none of
them have been examined.
5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 16.03.2024
without any rhymes or reason.
6. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
grant of bail. 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 has 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.”
7. There is no fresh ground to consider the bail petition
of the petitioner. From the aforesaid report, it appears that the
trial has commenced.
8. In view of the above, the prayer for bail of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16883 of 2026(3) dt.01-05-2026
3/3
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 four months from today. If the trial
is not concluded within the period of four 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.