Patna High Court
Aayush Kumar Dubey @ Pawan KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- KHATIM REZA
Holding
The Court granted bail to the petitioner subject to specified conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Ayush Kumar Dubey, was arrested in connection with a murder case (Kesariya PS Case No. 405 of 2023) alleged under Sections 302, 120B/34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner conspired to kill the informant's son, who was a deed writer, and that the petitioner was present at the scene. The petitioner had previously applied for regular bail, which was rejected, and subsequently filed a discharge petition under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C., leading to repeated adjournments and a four‑month delay in framing charges. Counsel argued that the prolonged delay violated the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial and that he was falsely implicated. The State opposed bail, citing the pending discharge petition and the seriousness of the offences. The High Court, after considering the facts and the delay, granted bail on a cash bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, imposing conditions regarding cooperation, surety affiliation, disclosure of future similar accusations, and non‑tampering with evidence.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted despite the pending discharge petition and delay in framing charge.
- Whether the delay in framing charge infringes the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial warranting bail.
- Whether the petitioner poses a risk of fleeing, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 227
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 302, 34
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- conspiracy
- arms act
- delay in framing charge
- discharge petition
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18442 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-405 Year-2023 Thana- KESARIA District- East Champaran
======================================================
Aayush Kumar Dubey @ Pawan Kumar, S/o- Ravi Shankar Diwedi @ Ravi
Shankar Dubey, Resident of Village- Mananpur Ward No- 9 PS- Kalyanpur,
District- East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun, Adv.
Mr. Karandeep Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Madan Kumar, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Shanti Bhushan Singh, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA
ORAL ORDER
5 08-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
A.P.P for the State and learned counsel for the informant.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a
supplementary affidavit has been filed today i.e. on 08.05.2026
through e-filing and hard copy is filed in the Court which may
be accepted.
3. Let it be accepted and kept it on record.
4. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Kesariya PS Case No. 405 of 2023 dated 09.08.2023 instituted
for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 120B/34 of the
Indian Penal Code and Sections 27 of the Arms Act.
5. The prosecution case, in short, is that the son of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18442 of 2026(5) dt.08-05-2026
2/5
informant, Mukesh Kumar Dwivdi, was a Deed Writer in the
Registry Officer, Keksariya and he was going to Registry
Officer on the alleged date of occurrence along with one Bittu
Dubey. He was shot dead near Rajpur Zirat. He went at the
place of occurrence and inquired about the occurrence and came
to know that Ravi Shankar Dubey and the petitioner along with
some unknown persons were following his son under a
conspiracy and killed him.
6. Earlier, vide order dated 24.01.2025 passed in
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 46696 of 2024, the petitioner’s bail
application was rejected.
7. This is second attempt for grant of regular bail
application to the petitioner.
8. Vide order dated 25.07.2025, a report about the
present stage of trial was also called for from the concerned
Court, which is on record. In the report, the learned District &
Additional Sessions Judge-XX, Motihari has stated that a
discharge petition filed by the petitioner is pending. Next date
02.04.2026 was fixed for hearing on discharge petition filed by
Ayush Kumar Dubey (petitioner).
9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18442 of 2026(5) dt.08-05-2026
3/5
case. It is submitted that the case was fixed for charge on
18.03.2025 on which date, the petitioner was physically present
and further, the case was fixed for framing of charge on
26.03.2025 and thereafter, it was fixed on 09.04.2025 and
subsequently on 23.04.2025 and thereafter again it was fixed on
23.04.2025 and then it was fixed for 07.05.2025 and on all
dates, the petitioner and other co-accused was physically present
but charge was not framed. It is further submitted that objection
raised by the counsel for the informant is only due to filing of
the discharge petition, the charge has not been framed. In this
regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner filed entire order-
sheet of the trial showing the dates on which the petitioner was
produced from the custody after disposal of discharge petition
on 24.02.2025 filed by the co-accused Ramkishore Dwivedi.
Four months have passed without framing of charge and after
24.02.2025, four dates were fixed for framing of charge i.e.
05.03.2025, 08.03.2025, 26.03.2025 and 09.04.2025. Learned
counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the
petitioner had filed discharge petition under Section 227 of
Cr.P.C. on 04.06.2025. On several occasions, the petitioner was
physically present before the concerned court but the time for
hearing on the point of discharge was extended one after another
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18442 of 2026(5) dt.08-05-2026
4/5
date. Further, it is submitted that till date charge has not been
framed. It is also submitted that the petitioner was directed to
renew the prayer for bail if the trial is not concluded within one
year vide order dated 24.01.2025. Lastly, it has been submitted
that the petitioner is in custody since 16.10.2023, having five
criminal cases against him and charge-sheet has been submitted
in the case.
10. Learned counsel for the informant and learned
A.P.P for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner
and submitted that due to his petition for discharge, the charge
has not been framed as yet.
11. Having considered the facts and circumstances of
the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, let
the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of
Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions
Judge-XXII, East Champaran at Motihari in connection with
Sessions Trial No. 292 of 2024 arising out of Kesariya P.S. Case
No. 405 of 2023, subject to the following conditions:-
1. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and
shall be properly represented on each and every
date fixed by the Court and on his absence on two
consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18442 of 2026(5) dt.08-05-2026
5/5
bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
2. One of the bailors will be his own blood
relation, preferably father, mother, brother, sister
and or his wife.
3. The bailor shall also state on affidavit that
he will inform the court concerned if the petitioner
is made accused in any other case of similar nature
after his release in the present case and thereafter
the court below will be at liberty to initiate the
proceeding for cancellation of bail on ground of
misuse.
4. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence
or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will
be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.
(Khatim Reza, J)
prabhat/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.