Patna High Court
Bipin Kumar Sharma @ Bipin SharmaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The bail petition was denied as there were no new grounds and the trial is at an advanced stage.
Summary
The Patna High Court considered the second bail application of Bipin Kumar Sharma, who is in judicial custody for offences under Sections 103(1) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The petitioner argued that he has been detained since 24‑04‑2025 without sufficient cause and that only four of six charge‑sheet witnesses have been examined. The State opposed bail, relying on a 2024 Supreme Court decision that bail should be denied once trial of serious offences is underway. The Court found no new ground to revisit its earlier order and noted that the trial is at an advanced stage. Consequently, the bail petition was rejected, with a direction to the lower court to expedite the trial within three months, after which the petitioner may re‑apply for bail.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused given the seriousness of the offences and the advanced stage of trial
- Whether the Supreme Court precedent in X vs. State of Rajasthan (2024) applies to deny bail in this case
- Whether any new ground exists to merit a fresh consideration of bail
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(1), 61(2)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- serious offences
- trial stage
- judicial custody
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Arms Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44865 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-8 Year-2025 Thana- RATWARA District- Madhepura
======================================================
Bipin Kumar Sharma @ Bipin Sharma Son of Late Nageshwar Sharma
Resident of Village- Muraut, P.S.- Tatwara, District- Madhepura
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amrendra Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Satyendra Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
2 03-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Ratwara P.S. Case No. 08 of 2025, instituted for the offences
under Sections 103(1), 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. This is the second attempt of the petitioner for bail.
The petitioner has renewed his prayer for grant of regular bail
which was earlier rejected by this Court vide order dated
09.02.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 80155 of 2025 taking into
consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, cogent
material against him in the case diary to show the active
involvement of the petitioner in the alleged occurrence.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44865 of 2026(2) dt.03-07-2026
2/3
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 24.04.2025
without any rhymes or reason and has got two criminal
antecedents. It is further submitted that charge has already been
framed against the petitioner and out of six charge-sheeted
witnesses, only four witnesses have been examined in this case.
5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed
the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. 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 as 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 new 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.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44865 of 2026(2) dt.03-07-2026
3/3
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 preferably within a
period of three months from today. If the trial is not concluded
within the period of three months, as stated above, the petitioner
will be at liberty to renew his prayer before the court below.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Rajorshi/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.