Patna High Court
Shashi Rai @ Shashi Bhushan Kumar YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The court held that bail cannot be granted as the trial has already commenced and no fresh ground was shown.
Summary
The petitioner, Shashi Rai, was arrested in connection with offences under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act. He has been in judicial custody since 12 November 2024 and earlier bail applications were rejected. The petitioner argued that only one of eight charge‑sheeted witnesses had been examined, seeking bail on that ground. The State opposed bail, relying on a 2024 Supreme Court decision that once trial commences for serious offences, courts should be loath to grant bail. The High Court found no fresh ground for bail and, noting that the trial had already started, rejected the bail petition, directing the lower court to complete the trial within six months and allowing a fresh application thereafter.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted after the trial has commenced for serious offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Arms Act
- Whether the petitioner has any fresh ground to justify bail despite the trial being underway
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(1), 3(5)
Subjects
- bail
- serious offences
- trial commencement
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Arms Act
- high court
- pre‑trial detention
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35144 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-21 Year-2024 Thana- Bijdhari District- East Champaran
======================================================
Shashi Rai @ Shashi Bhushan Kumar Yadav Son of Swarup Rai @
Ramswarup Rai Resident of village- Sundrapur, Ps- Bijdhari, Dist- East
champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Hemant Ray, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Pushpa Sinha, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
2 15-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP
for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Bijdhari
P.S. Case No. 21 of 2024, instituted for the offences under
Sections 103(1), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and
27 of the Arms Act.
3. Earlier, vide order dated 29.08.2025 passed in Cr.
Misc. No. 22067 of 2025 regular bail of the petitioner was
rejected by this Court considering the nature and gravity of
offence and the material available in the case diary. The present
one is the second attempt of the petitioner for grant of bail.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35144 of 2026(2) dt.15-05-2026
2/3
the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 12.11.2024
without any rhymes or reason. Learned counsel for the
petitioner also submits that there are eight charge-sheeted
witnesses and out of them, only one witness has been examined
till date.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
grant of bail and submitted that the trial has commenced.
Learned APP for the State 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, the
Hon’ble Apex Court has held has 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 the bail application
of the accused.”
6. There is no fresh ground to consider the bail petition
of the petitioner.
7. 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35144 of 2026(2) dt.15-05-2026
3/3
preferably within a period of six months from today. If the trial
is not concluded within the period of six months, as stated
above, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer before
the court below.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Alok Verma/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.