Patna High Court
Alok KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The Court held that, given the gravity of the offences, the evidence on record, and the advanced stage of the trial, bail could not be granted to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Alok Kumar, was arrested on 29 March 2023 in connection with a murder that allegedly took place in a court premises, and is charged under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 20(1‑b)a, 26, 35 and 27 of the Arms Act. He filed a second bail application before the Patna High Court after an earlier bail plea was rejected on 2 August 2024. The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the offences, the petitioner’s involvement as named in the FIR, and the testimony of multiple witnesses supporting the prosecution. The Court noted that six of nine witnesses had already been examined and that the trial was nearing conclusion. Relying on the Supreme Court’s guidelines in X v. State of Rajasthan (2024 SCC Online SC 3539), the Court found no sufficient ground to grant bail. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed, and the trial was directed to be expedited.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate criteria for granting bail to an accused charged with murder, rioting, and offences under the Arms Act?
- Whether the stage of the trial and the presence of substantial evidence against the petitioner preclude the grant of bail?
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 20(1-b)a, 26, 27, 35
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 147, 148, 149, 302
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- rioting
- conspiracy
- Arms Act
- Indian Penal Code
- Supreme Court precedent
- trial stage
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26043 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-206 Year-2023 Thana- SAHARSA SADAR District- Saharsa
======================================================
Alok Kumar Son of Bhupendra Yadav Resident of Village - Pashupalan
Colony, Ward No. 02/12, P.S. - Saharsa, District - Saharsa
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amarnath Jha
For the State : Mr. Tapeshwar Sharma
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
6 10-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. This is the second attempt on behalf of the
petitioner for grant of bail in connection with S.T. No. 366 of
2023 arising out of Saharsa Sadar P.S. Case No. 206 of 2023
registered for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302,
120(B) of the IPC and 20(1-b)a, 26, 35, 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Earlier, the bail application of the petitioner has
been rejected by this Court vide order dated 02.08.2024 passed
in Cr. Misc. No. 50610 of 2024, which reads as under:
“ Heard learned counsel for the petitioner
and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection
with Saharsa Sadar P.S. Case No. 206 of 2023
registered for the offence punishable under
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26043 of 2025(6) dt.10-02-2026
2/3
Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 120B of the
Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1-B)a, 26,
35 and 27 of the Arms Act.
3. All together six persons are named in
the FIR. The accused persons are said to have
killed the deceased in the Court premises. The
petitioner was caught on the spot as one of the
accused who participated in the killing of the
deceased in the Court premises. The petitioner
is in jail since 29.03.2023.
4. Learned APP appearing for the State
opposes the prayer for regular bail of the
petitioner and submitted that petitioner is
named in the FIR and there is specific
allegation of killing the deceased against him.
During investigation several witnesses have
also supported the prosecution case.
5. Considering the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case as well as the nature
of allegation, this Court is not inclined to
enlarge the petitioner on bail.
6. Accordingly, the application stands
rejected.
7. The trial Court is directed to expedite
the trial.”
4. As per submission, out of nine witnesses, six
witnesses have been examined.
5. Considering the fact that the trial is on the verge of
conclusion and also the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of X Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26043 of 2025(6) dt.10-02-2026
3/3
reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3539, I am not inclined to
grant bail to the petitioner.
6. Accordingly, this application is dismissed
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
priyanka/-
U T
Checking your session…