Patna High Court
Avinash KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SHAILENDRA SINGH
Holding
The court held that, given the prolonged custody, lack of substantive evidence, and bail already granted to co‑accused, the petitioner is entitled to regular bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Avinash Kumar, applied for regular bail in a case involving offences under Sections 392 and 395 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. He argued that his trial had progressed very slowly, with only one prosecution witness examined after more than a year in custody, and that he was not named in the FIR but was implicated solely on a confessional statement. He also highlighted that co‑accused persons had already been granted bail and that there was no admissible incriminating evidence against him. The State opposed bail, citing three prior criminal cases against the petitioner, which had been considered in the earlier denial of bail. The court, noting the undue delay, the lack of substantive evidence, and the bail already granted to co‑accused, held that the petitioner deserved bail and ordered his release on a bond of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail should be granted when the trial has been unduly delayed and only minimal prosecution evidence is presented
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents justify denial of bail
- Whether the confessional statement, absent a name in the FIR, constitutes sufficient incriminating evidence for continued detention
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 392, 395
Subjects
- regular bail
- trial delay
- confessional statement
- criminal antecedents
- IPC 392
- IPC 395
- Arms Act 27
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4881 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-31 Year-2024 Thana- KARJA District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Avinash Kumar, Son of Tarkeshwar Giri, Resident of Village - Nawada, P.S.-
Sahebganj, District - Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raju Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Naresh Ray, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 30-01-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned APP for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with
S.Tr. No. 568 of 2024, arising out of Karja P.S. Case No. 31 of
2024, registered for the offence(s) punishable under Section(s)
392, 395 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms
Act.
3. The main submissions advanced by petitioner's
counsel are that this is the second attempt of the petitioner to get
the relief of regular bail, though his earlier prayer has already
been rejected by this Bench vide order dated 29.11.2024 passed
in Cr. Misc. No. 77761 of 2024 giving him a liberty to renew his
bail prayer, in case no significant progress is made in his trial
within one years and despite lapse of the said period there has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4881 of 2026(2) dt.30-01-2026
2/3
been no significant progress in the trial of the petitioner as only
one prosecution witness has been examined so far though the
petitioner has been in custody since 12.03.2024 and as far as the
merit of the allegation is concerned, the petitioner is not named
in the FIR, he has been dragged in the present matter mainly on
the basis of his confessional statement which is said to have
been recorded by him in Paroo P.S. Case No. 35 of 2024. It is
lastly submitted that all the co-accused persons have been
granted bail by this Bench vide order dated 26.07.2024 and
25.10.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 33023 of 2024 and Cr. Misc.
No. 49780 of 2024 respectively (Annexure- P/3) and there is no
admissible incriminating evidence against this petitioner.
4. Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed
the bail prayer of the petitioner and submits that against the
petitioner there are criminal antecedents of three cases, which
was mainly taken into account by this court while rejecting the
first prayer of the petitioner.
5. Considering the aforesaid submissions and mainly
taking into account the slow pace of the prosecution in
producing and examining the prosecution witnesses in the trial
of the petitioner coupled with the petitioner's custody period
which has already been about one year and ten months and the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4881 of 2026(2) dt.30-01-2026
3/3
fact that co-accused persons have already been granted the relief
of bail, in my opinion, in the said circumstances, the petitioner
now deserves to the relief of bail. Accordingly, let the petitioner
named-above be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.
20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of the concerned Court in
connection with S.Tr. No. 568 of 2024, arising out of Karja P.S.
Case No. 31 of 2024,
(Shailendra Singh, J)
Rajiv/-
U T
Checking your session…