Patna High Court
Ravi Ranjan Choube @ Ravi Ranjan ChoubeyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The bail petition is dismissed; the petitioner is not entitled to bail.
Summary
Petitioner Ravi Ranjan Choube was arrested in connection with a case involving offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, POCSO Act, Juvenile Justice Act, Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act. He applied for regular bail for the second time after an earlier bail denial, claiming he has been in judicial custody since 23‑02‑2025, has no criminal antecedents, and that the trial is unlikely to conclude soon. The State opposed bail, relying on a Supreme Court decision (X v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC Online SC 3539) that serious offences warrant denial of bail once trial commences. The High Court observed that the trial is ongoing, with only two of nineteen witnesses examined, and found no new ground to revisit the earlier decision. Consequently, the court rejected the bail petition and directed the lower court to expedite the trial to be completed within six months, allowing a fresh bail application thereafter.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to the petitioner despite the seriousness of the offences and the ongoing trial.
- Whether any new ground exists to overturn the earlier bail denial.
- Whether the anticipated trial delay justifies granting bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 143(1), 145, 3(5), 64, 65(1), 98
- Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act — s. 3, 4, 5, 6
- Juvenile Justice (JJ) Act — s. 75, 79
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) — s. 12, 6, 8
Subjects
- bail
- serious offences
- trial delay
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- POCSO Act
- Juvenile Justice Act
- Immoral Traffic Act
- Bonded Labour Act
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.52 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-8 Year-2025 Thana- MAHILA P.S District- West Champaran
======================================================
Ravi Ranjan Choube @ Ravi Ranjan Choubey S/O Raju Choubey @ Raju
Chaube R/O Village- Gurha, Ward- 12, Post- Pipra, P.S- Govindganj, District-
East Champaran Bihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. X W/O Girish Prasad The officer-in-incharge, Bettiah Mahila P.S- Bettiah
Town, Dist- West Champaran , Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mayank Mohan, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dr. Mrityunjaya Kr. Gautam, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
3 11-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP
for the State. Despite valid issuance of notice, none appears for
the informant.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Bettiah
Mahila P.S. Case No. 08 of 2025 instituted for the offences
under Sections 64, 65(1), 143(1), 145, 98 & 3(5) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 6, 8 & 12 of the
POCSO Act and Sections 75 & 79 of the J.J. Act and Sections 3,
4, 5 & 6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and Sections
16, 17 & 18 of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act.
3. This is the second attempt of the petitioner for bail.
The petitioner has renewed his prayer for grant of regular bail
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52 of 2026(3) dt.11-03-2026
2/3
which was earlier rejected on merit by this Court vide order
dated 13.08.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 31511 of 2025, taking
into account the nature of accusation and the gravity of the
offence and involvement of the petitioner in the offence.
4. In compliance of the order dated 17.01.2026, a
report dated 12.02.2026 with regard to the present stage of trial
has been received. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it
appears that two (2) out of nineteen (19) charge sheet witnesses
have been examined in this case. It is further reported that trial
is likely to be concluded within a period of nine months.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 23.02.2025
without any rhymes or reason, having no criminal antecedent.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no
likelihood of the trial being concluded in the near future, hence,
petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
6. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
grant of bail. Learned APP has further 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,
Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under:
“14. Ordinarily in
serious offences like rape, murder,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52 of 2026(3) dt.11-03-2026
3/3
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.”
7. 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.
8. 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 expeditiously
preferably within a period of six months from today. If the trial
is not concluded within the period of six months, as stated
above, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer before
the court below.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Raj Kishore/-
U T
Checking your session…