Patna High Court
Rupesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The court held that the prolonged pre‑trial custody and the lack of imminent trial completion warranted the grant of bail, subject to strict conditions.
Summary
Rupesh Kumar was arrested on 19‑03‑2024 in connection with a case involving offences under Sections 304(B), 201 and 34 of the IPC. He had been denied regular bail twice earlier. The petitioner argued that he has a clean antecedent, the FIR is fabricated, and that the trial is far from completion, with only six of ten witnesses examined. The trial court report indicated that four witnesses, including the informant, were yet to be examined, making an early conclusion unlikely. Considering the two‑year pre‑trial detention and the pending witnesses, the High Court granted bail on a Rs.10,000 bond with two sureties, imposing conditions of cooperation, presence, and non‑tampering with evidence. The bail order also directed verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent without delaying the release.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate exercise of discretion by the court in granting bail to an accused who has been in pre‑trial custody for nearly two years?
- Whether the stage of trial and the likelihood of a speedy conclusion justify the grant of bail in a case involving murder and dowry‑death offences.
Subjects
- bail
- pre‑trial detention
- Section 304B IPC
- Section 201 IPC
- Section 34 IPC
- Criminal Procedure Code
- trial delay
- dowry death
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4706 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-131 Year-2023 Thana- MATIHANI District- Begusarai
======================================================
Rupesh Kumar son of Late Ram Bahadur Rai Resident of Village -Matihani
Ps- Matihani District -Begusarai Bihar ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mrs. Sarita Kumari, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Zainul Abedin, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 18-03-2026 Heard Mr. Sarita Kumari, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Zainul Abedin, learned APP for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since
19.03.2024 in connection with S.T. No. 133 of 2025, arising out
of Matihani P.S. Case No. 131 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 31.08.2023,
for the offences punishable under Sections 304(B), 201 read
with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Earlier, the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner
was twice rejected by this Court vide order dated 18.10.2024
passed in Cr. Misc. No. 60039 of 2024 and vide order dated
20.06.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 31887 of 2025.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been
implicated in the present case. The allegation as alleged in the
FIR is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed
any offence as alleged in the FIR. The petitioner has been made
accused in the present case merely on the ground that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4706 of 2026(3) dt.18-03-2026
2/3
petitioner is the husband of the deceased. In fact, the family
members of the deceased have also participated in the last
rituals of the deceased and the petitioner is in judicial custody
since 19.03.2024 and trial is not in progress.
5. Vide order dated 30.01.2026, a report was called for
with regard to the stage of trial. Report dated 26.02.2026 of the
learned Trial Court reveals that out of ten charge-sheet
witnesses, six witnesses have been examined including the I.O.
and four non-official witnesses are yet to be examined including
the informant.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in
view of the report of the learned Trial Court that there is no
chance of early conclusion of the trial in near future and the
petitioner is in custody since 19.03.2024 near about two years.
7. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed
the prayer for bail.
8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
and also the report of the learned Trial Court and period of
custody of the petitioner, let the petitioner, above named, be
released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned District and Additional Sessions
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4706 of 2026(3) dt.18-03-2026
3/3
Judge-II, Begusarai, in connection with S.T. No. 133 of 2025,
arising out of Matihani P.S. Case No. 131 of 2025, with the
following conditions:
i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and
on her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, his/her bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move
for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at
any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the
acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order
shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Ranjeet/-
U T
Checking your session…