Patna High Court
Sunil BindversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
Bail was denied as the trial was at an advanced stage and no new ground for relief was shown.
Summary
Sunil Bind was arrested in connection with a murder case (IPC Sections 302/34) and has been in judicial custody since June 5, 2024. He filed a second bail application after an earlier denial, arguing lack of criminal antecedents and that the prosecution had already filed an application under CrPC Section 311 and Evidence Act Section 165 to produce the inquest report. The State opposed bail, noting that the trial was at the argument stage and citing the Supreme Court’s decision in X v. State of Rajasthan (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3539) which discourages bail in serious offences once trial has commenced. The Patna High Court found no new ground for bail and rejected the petition, directing the lower court to complete the prosecution’s Section 311 application within a month and to conclude the trial within two months.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to an accused of murder (IPC 302/34) when the trial is at an advanced stage.
- Whether the Supreme Court precedent in X v. State of Rajasthan (2024) bars bail in such circumstances.
- Whether any new ground exists to justify bail for the petitioner.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 311
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 165
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 34
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- IPC 302
- IPC 34
- CrPC 311
- Evidence Act 165
- high court
- trial stage
- serious offences
- precedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18373 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-396 Year-2024 Thana- BHABHUA District- Kaimur (Bhabua)
======================================================
Sunil Bind son of Jawahar Prasad Resident of Village- Sarewan PS- Bhabua
Distt- Kaimur (Bhabua)
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Pathak, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
2 18-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Bhabua P.S. Case No. 396 of 2024 instituted for the offences
under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
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
03.03.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 86249 of 2024 taking into
consideration the nature and gravity of the offence.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 05.06.2024
without any rhymes or reason and has got no criminal
antecedent. It is next submitted that the prosecution side has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18373 of 2026(2) dt.18-03-2026
2/3
filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. and Section
165 of the Indian Evidence Act for the purpose of exhibiting the
inquest report annexed with the case diary and taking the same
in evidence. It is further submitted that all the prosecution
witnesses have been examined in this case.
5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed
the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. It is also submitted
that the trial is at the stage of argument and is likely to be
concluded very soon. 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 report, it appears that the
trial is going on and is at an advance stage.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18373 of 2026(2) dt.18-03-2026
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
conclude the petition filed by the prosecution under Section 311
of Cr.P.C. and Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act
preferably within a period of one month and conclude the trial
preferably within a period of two months from today.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Rajorshi/-
U T
Checking your session…