Patna High Court
Dinesh Kumar Singh @ Dinesh SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The application for cancellation of bail is dismissed, and the bail remains in force.
Summary
The petitioner, Dinesh Kumar Singh, filed an application seeking cancellation of the bail granted to Shashi Bhushan Singh (Opposite Party No.2) in a murder case arising from Gaurichak P.S. case No. 210 of 2020. The petition relied on two grounds: that the trial delay was caused by the accused and that an eye‑witness was murdered two days after the bail order, suggesting a conspiratorial role by the accused. The respondent argued that the delay was due to procedural disputes over a non‑charge‑sheet witness, that the accused had not yet been released when the murder occurred, and that he remained in custody for another case. The court examined the bail bond dates, custody status, and the fact that the evidence of the deceased witness had been recorded in both related trials. Finding that the accused was still in custody at the time of the alleged murder and that the petitioner's grounds were not sustainable, the court dismissed the application. Consequently, the bail remained in force.
Issues considered
- Whether delay in trial attributable to the accused can justify cancellation of bail.
- Whether the murder of an eye‑witness after the bail order, when the accused was still in custody, warrants bail cancellation.
- Whether the existence of charges in another case affects the bail granted in the present case.
- Whether a procedural oversight in not bringing certain evidence to the court’s notice is a ground for revoking bail.
Subjects
- bail cancellation
- murder trial
- eye‑witness
- trial delay
- criminal procedure
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.45892 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-210 Year-2020 Thana- GAURICHAK District- Patna
======================================================
Dinesh Kumar Singh @ Dinesh Singh S/o Banaras Singh R/o Village-
Hathder (Hander), Sampatchak, P.S.- Sampatchak, District- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Bihar
2. Shashi Bhushan Singh S/o Late Mishri Singh R/o vill - Hander, P.S. -
Sampatchak, Distt.- Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Uma Shankar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Jagdhar Prasad, APP
For O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Manendra Kr. Sinha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL ORDER
9 10-04-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,
learned counsel appearing for the State and learned counsel
appearing for Opposite Party No. 2.
2. The present application has been filed for
cancellation of bail granted to Opposite Party No. 2 vide order
dated 20.06.2025 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 12653
of 2025 in Sessions Trial No. 13 of 2021 arising out of
Gaurichak P.S. Case No. 210 of 2020.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
present application for cancellation of bail is based on two
grounds. Firstly, it is contended that the delay in trial has not
been caused by the prosecution but is attributable to Opposite
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45892 of 2025(9) dt.10-04-2026
2/4
Party No. 2 himself. Secondly, it is submitted that bail was
granted to Opposite Party No. 2 by this Hon’ble Court on
20.06.2025 and, within two days thereof, the murder of an eye-
witness was committed on 22.06.2025. Learned counsel further
submits that the case diary has been called for and, upon perusal
thereof, it appears that charge has already been framed. It is
further submitted that materials have surfaced against Opposite
Party No. 2 in the subsequent case and he has been
chargesheeted therein.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.
2 submits that the grounds raised for cancellation of bail are not
maintainable. It is contended that the delay in trial cannot be
attributed to Opposite Party No. 2; rather, objections were raised
as the prosecution sought to examine a non-charge-sheet
witness, which led to litigation up to this Hon’ble Court. It is
further submitted that although bail was granted on 20.06.2025
and the alleged occurrence took place on 22.06.2025, Opposite
Party No. 2 had not been released by that time, as he furnished
bail bonds only on 25.06.2025, as evident from Annexure-B to
the counter affidavit. It is also submitted that Opposite Party No.
2 is still in custody in connection with another case. It is further
submitted that in paragraph 11 of the application, reference has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45892 of 2025(9) dt.10-04-2026
3/4
been made to Sessions Trial Nos. 13 of 2021 and 647 of 2022. It
is contended that the evidence of the deceased had been
recorded in one trial, whereas in the other trial, the eye-witness
was yet to be examined, and it is alleged that the murder was
committed for this reason, in which Opposite Party No. 2 is said
to have played a conspiratorial role. It is further submitted that
such allegation is based on the initial statements of co-accused
persons as reflected in the case diary. From Annexure-C to the
counter affidavit, it transpires that the evidence of the deceased,
namely Anjani Kumar Singh, has been recorded in both
Sessions Trial Nos. 13 of 2021 and 647 of 2022, as both trials
are being conducted together.
5. In response, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that there was an inadvertent mistake on the part of the
counsel at the time of consideration of bail, inasmuch as the fact
regarding the evidence of the said witness in the connected
sessions trial was not properly brought to the notice of the
Court.
6. After hearing the parties and upon consideration of
the materials on record, this Court finds that both the grounds
raised by the petitioner are not sustainable. It is evident that
Opposite Party No. 2 was in custody at the time when the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45892 of 2025(9) dt.10-04-2026
4/4
alleged murder took place.
7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
this Court is not inclined to entertain the present application.
Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Ashwini/-
U T
Checking your session…