Patna High Court
Dinesh Kumar KushwahaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
Bail was denied as the trial had progressed and no fresh grounds were presented.
Summary
The petitioner, Dinesh Kumar Kushwaha, was charged under Sections 65(1), 64, 62, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act in a case involving alleged sexual offences. He applied for regular bail for the second time after an earlier bail denial. The court noted that eight of twelve prosecution witnesses had already been examined, indicating the trial was at an advanced stage. The State opposed bail, relying on a 2024 Supreme Court decision (X vs. State of Rajasthan) which cautioned against granting bail in serious offences once trial proceeds. The High Court found no fresh grounds for bail, rejected the petition, and directed the lower court to expedite the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted at an advanced stage of trial for serious offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and POCSO Act.
- Whether the petitioner has raised any new ground justifying bail after the earlier denial.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 3(5), 62, 64, 65(1)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 4, 6
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO
- serious offences
- trial stage
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19564 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-5 Year-2025 Thana- MAHILA P.S District- West Champaran
======================================================
Dinesh Kumar Kushwaha S/o Alha Prasad Kushwaha @ Alha Mahato R/o
Village - Kuwarpatti, P.S - Yogapatti, District - West Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. X (Imaginary name of the Victim) D/o Raja Pandit R/o - Enai, P.S -
Rivilganj, District - Chhapra, Saran
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Tarun Prasad Mandal, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Vikash Kumar Shukla, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
4 08-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP
for the State as also learned counsel for the informant.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
POCSO Case No. 175/2025, arising out of Bettiah Mahila P.S.
Case No. 05/2025 registered for the offences under Sections
65(1), 64, 62 & 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and
Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO 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 on merit by this Court vide order
dated 23.07.2025, passed in Cr. Misc. No. 22261 of 2025,
taking into account the nature of the accusation and the gravity
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19564 of 2026(4) dt.08-05-2026
2/3
of the offence.
4. In compliance of the order dated 03.04.2026, a
report dated 29.04.2026, with regard to the present stage of trial
has been received. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it
appears that eight (8) out of twelve (12) prosecution witnesses
have been examined in this case.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 05.02.2025
without any rhymes or reason. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that there is no likelihood of the trial being
concluded in the near future, hence, petitioner may be enlarged
on bail.
6. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
grant of bail. Learned APP and learned counsel for the
informant has further 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, Hon’ble
Apex Court has observed 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19564 of 2026(4) dt.08-05-2026
3/3
loath in entertaining the bail
application of the accused.”
7. 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.
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.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Raj Kishore/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.