Patna High Court
Ranjeet PaswanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The court held that once the trial has started and witnesses are being examined, bail should not ordinarily be granted, and dismissed the bail application.
Summary
The petitioner, Ranjeet Paswan, sought regular bail for offences under Sections 365, 370, 371 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code arising from a 2018 case. The prosecution alleged that he abducted the victim and promised monthly payments, after which the victim disappeared. The petitioner claimed false implication and highlighted his clean antecedent, while noting that only four of six witnesses had been examined. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the charges. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in X vs State of Rajasthan & Anr. (2024 SCC Online SC 3539), the court held that once a trial is underway and witnesses are being examined, bail should not ordinarily be granted, and therefore dismissed the bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail can be granted to an accused of offences under Sections 365, 370, 371 and 120B IPC when the trial has commenced and witnesses are being examined
- Whether the petitioner’s claim of false implication and clean antecedent outweighs the gravity of the offences
- Application of the Supreme Court precedent X vs State of Rajasthan & Anr. to the present bail application
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 365, 370, 371
Subjects
- regular bail
- Indian Penal Code
- Section 365
- Section 370
- Section 371
- Section 120B
- false implication
- victim missing
- trial commencement
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4048 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-58 Year-2018 Thana- VIDYAPATINAGAR District- Samastipur
======================================================
Ranjeet Paswan Son of Ram Babu Paswan Resident of Village- Lodiyahi,
P.S.- Bachhwara, District- Begusarai
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Vishwanath Roy Son of Shri Shivnandan Ray Resident of Village- Sherpur
Diyara, P.S.- Vidayapatinagar, District- Samastipur
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Surya Narayan Roy, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Uma Shankar Prasad Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 12-02-2026 Heard the parties.
2. This is the second attempt of the petitioner for grant
of regular bail in connection Vidyapatinagar P.S. Case No. 58 of
2018 registered for the offence under Sections 365, 370, 371,
120B of Indian Penal Code. Earlier the bail application of the
petitioner was rejected vide order dated 23.08.2023 passed in
Cr. Misc. No. 52686 of 2023.
3. As per the prosecution case, petitioner had taken
away the victim and promised to pay Rs. 8,000/- per month to
him. Now, the victim is missing and there is no information with
regard to the victim by the petitioner. Petitioner is in custody
since 07.01.2023 and has clean antecedent.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4048 of 2026(2) dt.12-02-2026
2/2
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case.
Learned counsel further submits that out of six only four
witnesses have been examined. The petitioner undertakes to co-
operate in the case/ trial.
5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer
for regular bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the gravity of the offence and in view
of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of X
vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 2024 SCC Online
SC 3539 observing that once the trial has started and the
witnesses are being examined, the accused persons should not
be granted bail ordinarily, this application stands dismissed.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
tusharika/-
U T
Checking your session…