Patna High Court
Shubhankar Kumar @ Subhankar KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The bail application is dismissed; the petitioner is not entitled to bail at this stage.
Summary
The petitioner, Shubhankar Kumar, was charged under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act for allegedly firing at and killing a deceased person during a feast. He has been in custody since September 19, 2023, and his earlier bail application was rejected. He filed a second bail application after the charges were framed and the trial had commenced, arguing that the informant was not an eye‑witness and that one trial witness had already been examined. The High Court, noting the gravity of the murder charge, the fact that the trial was already underway, and the lack of compelling reasons to overturn its earlier order, dismissed the bail application. The court directed the trial judge to separate the petitioner’s trial, expedite it, and ensure witness attendance, while allowing a future bail petition if the prosecution causes undue delay.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted in a murder case under Sections 302/34 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act after the trial has commenced and charges have been framed.
- Whether the credibility of the informant and the status of trial witnesses affect the grant of bail.
- Whether delay by the prosecution in conducting the trial can justify bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 34
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- IPC 302
- common intention
- Arms Act
- trial commencement
- witness attendance
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33339 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-40 Year-2023 Thana- MANSI RAIL P.S. District- Khagaria
======================================================
Shubhankar Kumar @ Subhankar Kumar S/O Raman Kishore Yadav @
Raman Yadav R/O Village- Rohiyar, PS- Mansi, District- Khagaria
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Vivekanand Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Damodar Prasad Tiwary
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
4 10-02-2026 Heard the parties.
2. This is the second attempt of the petitioner for grant
of regular bail in connection with Sessions Trial No. 263 of
2024 arising out of Mansi Rail P.S. Case No. 40 of 2023
registered for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian
Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Earlier the
bail application of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated
04.10.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 43507 of 2024 which reads
as under:-
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner
and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection
with Mansi Rail P.S. Case No. 40/2023 registered
for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33339 of 2025(4) dt.10-02-2026
2/3
the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms
Act.
3. The petitioner is said to have fired at
the deceased and killed him. It has been alleged
that the petitioner had hosted a feast and in that
feast, all the accused persons and the deceased had
gone and while returning, the occurrence took
place.
4. The petitioner is said to have fired at
the deceased and killed him. This fact has been
supported by the informant and other witnesses.
Though it has been submitted by learned counsel
for the petitioner that the informant is not an eye
witness. The petitioner is in jail since 19.09.2023.
5. Considering the aforesaid facts of this
case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the
petitioner and therefore, the present bail
application is hereby rejected.
6. The trial court is directed to expedite
the trial. If the trial is delayed by the prosecution,
then the petitioner may renew prayer for bail.
3. It has very fairly been submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the charges have been framed in
this case and trial has stared. He further submits that in the trial,
one witness has already been examined.
4. Considering the gravity of the offence and the fact
that the trial has started, this court finds no ground to review its
earlier order.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33339 of 2025(4) dt.10-02-2026
3/3
5. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.
6. The trial Judge is directed to separate the trial of
the petitioner and conclude the same at the earliest.
7. The Superintendent of Police, Khagaria is directed
to ensure the attendance of the witnesses in the trial.
8. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Khagaria and
Superintendent of Police, Khagaria through FAX for its
compliance.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Vikas/-
U
Checking your session…