Patna High Court
Rajeev Ranjan Singh @ Bacchan SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
Bail is denied as there is no new ground and the trial is ongoing.
Summary
Petitioner Rajeev Ranjan Singh was charged under IPC sections 324, 302, 120(B) and Arms Act section 27 for a serious offence. He has been in judicial custody since 5 January 2024 and earlier bail applications were rejected. This is his second bail petition; the trial is at the prosecution‑evidence stage with no witnesses examined and is expected to finish within six months. The petitioner argued that he is languishing without reason and has a prior criminal antecedent for which he is on bail. The State opposed bail, and the court found no new ground to revisit the earlier decision, noting that the trial is progressing. Consequently, the court denied bail, directing the lower court to expedite the trial within four months and allowing a fresh bail application if the trial is not concluded.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner given the seriousness of the offences (IPC 324, 302, 120(B) and Arms Act 27).
- Whether any new ground exists to revisit the earlier bail denial.
- Whether the stage of trial and anticipated duration justify granting bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120(B), 302, 324
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- IPC
- Arms Act
- trial delay
- serious offences
- judicial custody
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.53581 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1 Year-2024 Thana- DHARHARA District- Munger
======================================================
Rajeev Ranjan Singh @ Bacchan Singh S/O Late Shambhu Singh @
Shambhu Prasad Singh R/O Vill.- Mohanpur, P.s.- Dharahara, Dist.- Munger.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kumar Kamal Nayan, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
5 26-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Dharahra P.S. Case No. 01 of 2024, instituted for the offences
under Sections 324, 302, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. This is the second attempt of the petitioner for bail.
The petitioner has renewed his prayer for grant of regular bail
which was earlier rejected by this Court vide order dated
18.11.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 63204 of 2024 taking into
account the nature of accusation against the petitioner and the
gravity of the offence.
4. In compliance of the order dated 09.01.2026, a
report dated 21.01.2026 with regard to the present stage of trial
has been received. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53581 of 2025(5) dt.26-02-2026
2/2
appears that charge has been framed against the petitioner on
11.09.2025. Thereafter the case is pending at the stage of
prosecution evidence. No any witness has been examined in this
case. It is further reported that the trial is likely to be concluded
within a period of six months.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 05.01.2024
without any rhymes or reason and has got one criminal
antecedent in which he is on bail.
6. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed
the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner.
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 preferably within a
period of four months from today. If the trial is not concluded
within the period of four months, as stated above, the petitioner
will be at liberty to renew his prayer before the court below.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Rajorshi/-
U T
Checking your session…