Patna High Court
Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Pal @ Rajesh PaalversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The court held that bail could not be granted as the offences are grave and the prosecution evidence is substantially completed.
Summary
The petitioner, Rajesh Kumar, was charged in Karpurigram P.S. Case No. 24 of 2023 for offences under Sections 324, 326, 326A and 307/34 of the IPC, alleged to have attacked the victim with acid causing grievous injury. He applied for regular bail for the second time, having previously been denied bail by the same court on 29-11-2023. The court noted that eight of nine witnesses had already been examined and that the trial was progressing. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in X Vs. State of Rajasthan (2024 SCC Online SC 3539), the judge held that the seriousness of the charges and the completed witness testimony warranted denial of bail. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed and the trial was directed to be expedited.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail despite the seriousness of the offences under Sections 324, 326, 326A and 307/34 IPC.
- Whether the Supreme Court precedent in X Vs. State of Rajasthan (2024) applies to deny bail in this case.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 307/34, 324, 326, 326A
Subjects
- bail
- acid attack
- grievous hurt
- IPC
- high court
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.46854 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-24 Year-2023 Thana- KARPURIGRAM District- Samastipur
======================================================
Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Pal @ Rajesh Paal S/O Yogendra Pal @ Yogendra
Paal R/O Vill.- Rajkhand, P.S.- Karpurigram, Dist.- Samastipur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Om Prakash Om, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Parmanand Kumar, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Bijay Bhushan Prasad, Advocate
Ms. Rani Shashi Bharti, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
4 10-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the
informant and learned APP for the State.
2. This is the second attempt on behalf of the
petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Karpurigram P.S.
Case No. 24 of 2023 registered for the offence under Sections
324, 326, 326A, 307/34 of the IPC.
3. Earlier, the bail application of the petitioner has
been rejected by this Court vide order dated 29.11.2023 passed
in Cr. Misc. No. 74435 of 2023, which reads as under:
“Heard Sri Mahendra Pratap, learned counsel
for the petitioners, Sri Anish Chandra, learned APP for
the State and learned counsel for the informant.
2. This application for grant of regular bail
arises out of Karpurigram P.S. Case No.24 of 2023
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46854 of 2025(4) dt.10-02-2026
2/2
registered for the offence punishable under Sections
324, 326, 326-A & 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. It is alleged that the petitioners have attacked
the victim with acid causing grievous injury.
4. Considering the seriousness of allegation, I
am not inclined to grant the petitioners privilege of
regular bail. Accordingly, this application is rejected.
The trial court is directed to expedite the trial and
conclude the same as early as possible.”
4. The report shows that out of nine witnesses, eight
witnesses have been examined whereas the learned counsel for
the informant submits that all the witnesses have been
examined.
5. Considering the above-mentioned fact and also the
law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of X
Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. reported in 2024 SCC
Online SC 3539, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
6. Accordingly, this application is dismissed
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
priyanka/-
U T
Checking your session…