Patna High Court
Dhananjay SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Bail was denied as the trial was already in progress and sufficient prosecution evidence had been recorded.
Summary
The petitioner, Dhananjay Singh, was charged under Sections 103(1), 3(5) and 61(2) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act. He had earlier filed a bail application which was rejected, but was given liberty to reapply. The present bail application was filed after the charge was framed and the trial had begun, with seven of ten prosecution witnesses already examined. The State argued that the trial was well underway and bail was not appropriate at this stage. The Court, after hearing both sides, declined to grant bail and ordered the trial court to expedite the proceedings within six months.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted when the trial has commenced and a majority of prosecution witnesses have been examined
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 — s. 103(1), 3(5), 61(2)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- trial stage
- Arms Act
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act
- expedited trial
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2128 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-20 Year-2025 Thana- BARUN District- Aurangabad
======================================================
Dhananjay Singh Son of Late Lalbahadur Singh R/O Village- More Sarai,
P.S.- Shivsagar, District- Rohtas
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Adv.
Mr. Purushottam Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Samali Acharya, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Aslam Ansari, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 21-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the informant.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Baroon
P.S. Case No. 20 of 2025, registered for the offences punishable
under Sections 103(1)/3(5)/61(2) of the B.N.S., 2023 and
Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant at the outset submits that petitioner had earlier filed
Cr. Misc. No.28762/2025 and the same came to be rejected by
an order dated 06.08.2025 with liberty to the petitioner to renew
his prayer for bail. It is next submitted that in terms of the
liberty, the present bail application has been filed but then after
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2128 of 2026(2) dt.21-04-2026
2/2
framing of charge, the trial has commenced and out of ten
prosecution witnesses, seven prosecution witnesses have been
examined.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner is not in a position to rebut the said submission of
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant. The
learned APP thus submits that since trial has commenced and
out of ten prosecution witnesses, seven prosecution witnesses
have been examined as such it is not a fit case for grant of bail
at this stage.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the
Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.
6. The regular bail application of the petitioner is
rejected.
7. The Court expects that the learned trial court shall
expedite the trial and try to conclude the same within a period of
six months.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U
Checking your session…