Patna High Court
Shipu KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
Bail was denied as there was no new ground and the trial was at an advanced stage, in line with the Supreme Court precedent.
Summary
Shipu Kumar was arrested in connection with offences under Sections 341, 323, 366A, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and a charge sheet under the POCSO Act. He has been in judicial custody since 25 June 2024 and filed a second bail application after an earlier denial. The High Court noted that five of seven prosecution witnesses have already been examined and the trial is expected to conclude within two months. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in X v. State of Rajasthan (2024 SCC Online SC 3539), which cautions against granting bail once trial has progressed in serious offences, the Court found no new ground to revisit the earlier order. Consequently, the bail petition was rejected, with a direction to the trial court to expedite the proceedings and a provision to re‑apply after two months if the trial remains pending.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to the accused at an advanced stage of trial for serious offences under the IPC and POCSO Act.
- Whether the Supreme Court precedent in X v. State of Rajasthan applies to deny bail in the present case.
- Whether any new ground exists to reconsider the earlier denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 341, 366A, 504
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
Subjects
- bail
- serious offences
- Indian Penal Code
- POCSO Act
- trial stage
- Supreme Court precedent
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.280 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-214 Year-2024 Thana- KONCH District- Gaya
======================================================
Shipu Kumar Son of Shivcharan Das Resident of Village- Dhan Chhuha, P.S.-
Konch, District- Gayaji
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. X S/o Y Resident of Village- Dhan Chhuha, P.S.- Konch, District- Gayaji
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Syed Ehteshamuddin, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
3 11-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP
for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Konch
P.S. Case No. 214 of 2024 instituted for the offences under
Sections 341, 323, 366A, 504 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
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 25.02.2025, passed in Cr. Misc. No. 83650 of 2024, taking
into account charge sheet being submitted under the POCSO Act
and the involvement of the petitioner.
4. In compliance of the order dated 17.01.2026, a report
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.280 of 2026(3) dt.11-03-2026
2/3
dated 13.02.2026, with regard to the present stage of trial has
been received. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it appears
that five (5) out of seven (7) charge sheet witnesses have been
examined in this case. It is further reported that trial is likely to
be concluded within a period of two months.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 25.06.2024,
without any rhymes or reason, having no criminal antecedent.
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 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 loath in entertaining
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.280 of 2026(3) dt.11-03-2026
3/3
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
preferably within a period of two months from today. If the trial
is not concluded within the period of two months, as stated
above, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer before
the court below.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Raj Kishore/-
U T
Checking your session…