Patna High Court
Pintu Kumar @ BhullaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
Bail was denied as there was no fresh ground and the trial was at an advanced stage for serious offences.
Summary
Pintu Kumar, accused of multiple serious offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, applied for bail after being in judicial custody since January 2025. The trial is at an advanced stage with charges framed and two of six witnesses examined. The State opposed bail, citing a 2024 Supreme Court decision that courts should be reluctant to grant bail once trial for serious crimes has commenced. The High Court found no fresh ground for bail and noted the seriousness of the offences. Consequently, the bail petition was rejected, with an order to expedite the trial within four months and a provision to renew the bail application if the trial is not concluded.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to the petitioner at the present advanced stage of trial for serious offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
- Whether any fresh ground exists to justify granting bail despite the seriousness of the charges.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109(1), 115(2), 126(2), 303(2), 351(3), 352, 64(1), 76
Subjects
- bail
- serious offences
- trial stage
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- high court
- precedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3786 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3 Year-2025 Thana- Lakho District- Begusarai
======================================================
Pintu Kumar @ Bhulla Son of Mantun Singh Resident of Village- Lakho,
P.S.- Lakho, District- Begusarai
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prerna Anand, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Satyendra Prasad, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Braj Bhushan Poddar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
3 11-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel
for the informant and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sessions
Trial No. 121 of 2025 arising out of Lakho P.S. Case No. 3 of
2025 instituted for the offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2),
76, 64(1), 303(2), 109(1), 352, 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023.
3. Earlier vide order dated 05.08.2025 passed in Cr.
Misc. No. 27793 of 2025 regular bail of the petitioner was
rejected by this Court considering the nature of accusation and
gravity of offence.
4. In compliance of the order dated 28.01.2026 a report
dated 07.02.2026 with regard to the present stage of trial has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3786 of 2026(3) dt.11-03-2026
2/3
been received. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it appears
that charges have been framed on 20.05.2025 and two witnesses
out of total six witnesses have already been examined.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 04.01.2025
without any rhymes or reason.
6. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the
informant vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail.
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.”
7. There is no fresh 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3786 of 2026(3) dt.11-03-2026
3/3
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 four months from today. If the trial
is not concluded within the period of four 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.