Patna High Court
Rohit Pandey@ Rohit Kumar @ Dhuman Kumar @ Dhiman Kumar@ Dhumal KumarversusThe State Of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The High Court rejected the bail application, directing the trial court to expedite the trial within five months.
Summary
The petitioner, Rohit Pandey, was charged under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act for alleged firing. He had been in judicial custody since September 2024 and previously sought regular bail, which the High Court rejected. A fresh bail application was filed, but the State opposed it citing a Supreme Court decision that bail is rarely granted once trial for serious offences has commenced. The court noted that twelve witnesses were charge‑sheeted, four examined, and the trial was expected to conclude within six months. Finding no fresh ground for bail and relying on the precedent, the court again denied bail and directed the trial court to expedite the trial within five months, allowing a fresh application thereafter.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to an accused of serious offences after the trial has commenced and prosecution witnesses have been examined
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail on the ground of prolonged pre‑trial detention
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(1), 3(5)
Subjects
- bail
- serious offences
- trial commencement
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Arms Act
- pre‑trial detention
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22516 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-335 Year-2024 Thana- BANIAPUR District- Saran
======================================================
Rohit Pandey@ Rohit Kumar @ Dhuman Kumar @ Dhiman Kumar@
Dhumal Kumar S/O Jaymangal Singh @ Jay Mangal Singh Resident Of
Village - Rajauli, P.S- Baniyapur, Dist- Saran at Chapra
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ram Binod Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pranav Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
3 01-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP
for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sessions
Trial No. 1052 of 2024 arising out of Baniyapur P.S. Case No.
335 of 2024 instituted for the offences under Sections 103(1),
3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27 of
the Arms Act.
3. Earlier, vide order dated 15.09.2025 passed in Cr.
Misc. No. 67192 of 2025, regular bail of the petitioner was
rejected by this Court considering the direct allegation of firing
against the petitioner.
4. In compliance of the order dated 03.04.2026 a report
dated 13.04.2026 with regard to the present stage of trial has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22516 of 2026(3) dt.01-05-2026
2/3
been received. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it appears
that there are twelve charge-sheeted witnesses and out of which
four have been examined. It is further reported that trial is likely
to be concluded in six months.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 04.09.2024
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.
8. In view of the above, the prayer for bail of the
petitioner is again rejected with a direction to the court below to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22516 of 2026(3) dt.01-05-2026
3/3
expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously
preferably within a period of five months from today. If the trial
is not concluded within the period of five 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.