Patna High Court
Ramesh Baitha @ Ramesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The High Court denied bail, holding that the seriousness of the offences and the commencement of trial preclude granting bail at this stage.
Summary
The petitioner, Ramesh Baitha, was charged with multiple offences including kidnapping, assault, and several offences of rape under the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. He had been in judicial custody since January 2024 and previously applied for bail, which was rejected on 7 April 2025 with a direction to reapply after six months if the trial was not concluded. He again sought bail, arguing that the trial was nearing its end, he had no prior criminal record, and the victim's statements and medical evidence were on record. The State relied on a Supreme Court precedent (X v. State of Rajasthan) emphasizing that bail is rarely granted in serious offences once trial proceedings have commenced. The Patna High Court, noting the seriousness of the charges and the earlier rejection, declined to grant bail, but allowed the petitioner to renew the application after three months if the trial remains pending, and directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to an accused in serious offences such as rape and kidnapping at a stage where trial proceedings have commenced.
- Whether the earlier rejection of bail precludes a fresh bail application before the stipulated period.
- Applicability of the Supreme Court's guidance in X v. State of Rajasthan regarding bail in serious crimes.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 161, 164
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 341, 346, 354A, 354B, 363, 366A, 376D, 504, 506
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 6
Subjects
- bail
- rape
- kidnapping
- POCSO
- serious offences
- trial delay
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23338 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-35 Year-2023 Thana- CHUTIA SAHAYAK District- Rohtas
======================================================
Ramesh Baitha @ Ramesh Kumar Son of Raju Baitha Resident of village-
Ladi, Po and Ps- Chainpur, Dist- Palamu, Jharkhand
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. XXXX son of YYYY Resident of village- Chutiya tola Lambar Dai, Ps-
Chutiya, Dist- Rohtas
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arvind Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Dr. Indiwar Kumari, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 17-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with
Chutiya P.S. Case No. 35 of 2023 instituted for the offence under
Sections 341, 323, 504, 506, 366(A), 34 of the Indian Penal Code
and charge sheet has been filed under Sections 341, 323, 346, 363,
366(A), 354(A), 354(B), 376(D), 34 of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 6 of the POCSO Act which was earlier rejected by this
Court vide order dated 07.04.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 80578
of 2024 with an observation that the petitioner will be at liberty to
renew his prayer for bail after six months, if the trial is not
concluded.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23338 of 2026(2) dt.17-04-2026
2/3
the trial has still not been concluded.
4. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the minor
daughter of the informant was being kidnapped by the petitioner
and one another.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner
that during the course of investigation, the victim was recovered
and her statement under Sections 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C. was
recorded wherein she has specifically stated that the petitioner and
one co-accused namely, Govinda have repeatedly raped her and in
medical examination, it has also come that the intercourse has
been performed with her.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that
from perusal of the order of the learned trial court, it transpires that
the trial is at its fag end. He further submits that a statement has
been made in para-3 of the petition that the petitioner has got no
criminal antecedent. Moreover, he is languishing in judicial
custody since 12.01.2024.
7. Learned APP for the State has relied on a judgment
of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of X Vs. State of Rajasthan
& Anr passed in SLP(Criminal) No. 13378 of 2024 wherein in
para- ‘14’, Hon’ble Apex Court has held which is being quoted
hereunder:-
14. Ordinarily in serious offences like rape, murder,
dacoity, etc., once the trial commences and the prosecution
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23338 of 2026(2) dt.17-04-2026
3/3
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.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
considering the fact that bail petition of the petitioner has already
been rejected earlier by this Court vide order dated 07.04.2025
passed in Cr. Misc. No. 80578 of 2024, this court is not inclined to
enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage and, as such, his prayer
for bail stands again rejected.
9. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his
prayer for bail after three months, if the trial is not concluded.
Learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Sudhanshu/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.