Patna High Court
Dev Kumar PaswanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The Court held that bail could not be granted as the trial had commenced, the offences were grave, and no fresh ground for bail was established.
Summary
The petitioner, Dev Kumar Paswan, applied for bail for the second time in a case registered under multiple provisions of the IPC, Arms Act, Explosive Act and UAPA relating to alleged Naxalite activities. The trial had already commenced and the petitioner had been in custody since 11 May 2025. The petitioner argued that he was not named in the FIR and was falsely implicated, while the State contended that investigation had established his involvement and that he was an absconder. The High Court noted the gravity of the offences, the fact that the trial was underway, and that no fresh ground for bail was shown. Consequently, the Court declined to review its earlier order and dismissed the bail application. The judgment expressly limited its observations to the bail application and did not express any opinion on the merits of the criminal case.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted at the stage of trial for offences of serious nature under IPC, Arms Act, Explosive Act and UAPA.
- Whether the petitioner’s claim of false implication and lack of naming in the FIR warrants a fresh ground for bail.
- Whether the earlier bail denial can be reviewed in the absence of new material facts.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-B), 26, 27, 35
- Explosive Act — s. 3, 4, 5
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120(b), 147, 148, 307, 353, 504, 506
- Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act — s. 16, 18, 20
Subjects
- bail
- IPC
- Arms Act
- Explosive Act
- UAPA
- Naxalite
- trial commencement
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28932 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-55 Year-2018 Thana- DUMARIYA District- Gaya
======================================================
Dev Kumar Paswan S/o Vanshi Paswan Resident of Village - Reganiya
Mircha, P.S - Amas, District - Gaya
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Swarna Roy, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 07-05-2026 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 Dumariya P.S.
Case No. 55 of 2018 registered for the offence under Sections
147, 148, 307, 353, 504, 506, 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code,
under Section 25(1-B), 26, 27, 35 of the Arms Act, under
Section 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Act and under Section 16,
18, 20 of the UAP Act
3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner has
been rejected vide order dated 17.09.2025 passed in Cr. Misc.
No. 63252 of 2025, which reads as under:
“Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28932 of 2026(2) dt.07-05-2026
2/3
connection with Dumariya P.S. Case No. 55 of
2018 registered for the offence under Sections
147, 148, 307, 353, 504, 506, 120(b) of the
Indian Penal Code, under Section 25(1-B), 26,
27, 35 of the Arms Act, under Section 3, 4 and
5 of the Explosive Act and under Section 16,
18, 20 of the UAP Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the
allegation against the petitioner is that he is
active member of Naxalite group and on raid
several incriminating articles have been
recovered from the petitioner and others.
4. The petitioner is in custody since
11.05.2025.
5. It has been submitted by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner is not named in the FIR and he has
falsely been implicated in this case.
6. Learned counsel for the State has
submitted that during investigation, the
petitioner’s involvement has come and he is an
absconder in a case of 2018.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts,
this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the
petitioner.
8. Accordingly, this application is
dismissed.”
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
though the charge has been framed and the trial has commenced.
5. Considering the gravity of the offence, the fact that
the trial has started and no fresh ground for grant of bail is made
out, I am not inclined to review my earlier order.
6. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.
7. It is, however, clarified that the observations made
herein are limited to the adjudication of the present bail
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28932 of 2026(2) dt.07-05-2026
3/3
application and shall not prejudice the case of the petitioner at
any subsequent stage of the trial and this Court has not express
any opinion on the merits of the case.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
P. Kumar
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.