Patna High Court
Shanku SahversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
Bail was denied as the court held that the seriousness of the offences and the commencement of trial preclude granting bail.
Summary
Shanku Sah was arrested in connection with a loot in which a person was killed, and is charged under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The petitioner sought regular bail for the second time, arguing that he had been in custody since July 2023 and that the trial was delayed, with a key witness turning hostile. The State opposed bail, relying on a recent Supreme Court decision that bail is generally not granted in serious offences once trial has commenced. The Patna High Court examined the petitioner’s alleged involvement from planning to sheltering the loot and noted that the trial had already started with charge‑sheet witnesses being examined. Considering the gravity of the offences and the commencement of trial, the court rejected the bail application and directed the police to ensure witness attendance, reaffirming its earlier order.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to an accused of murder and arms offences when the trial has commenced and the accused is alleged to have participated in the crime from planning to execution.
- Whether prolonged pre‑trial detention justifies bail despite the seriousness of the charges and the progress of the trial.
- Whether the requirement of a speedy trial outweighs the need to keep the accused in custody for a serious offence.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 34
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- IPC Section 302
- IPC Section 34
- Arms Act Section 27
- speedy trial
- pre‑trial detention
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.57006 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-262 Year-2023 Thana- SULTANGANJ District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
Shanku Sah S/o Gaurishankar Sah @ Gauri Sah Vill.- Abjuganj, Ps-
Sultanganj, Distt.- Bhagalpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rajive Ranjan Singh, Adv
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Pradeep Narain Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 10-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. This is the second attempt on behalf of the
petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Sultanganj
P.S.Case No.262 of 2023 registered for the offence punishable
under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27
of the Arms Act.
3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner has
been rejected vide order dated 18.12.2024 passed in Cr. Misc.
No.80324 of 2024 which reads as under:-
“ Heard the learned counsel
for the parties.
2. This is the 2nd attempt of the
petitioner. Earlier the bail application of
the petitioner was rejected vide order
dated 08.05.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.57006 of 2025(3) dt.10-02-2026
2/4
33492 of 2024.
3. The petitioner seeks regular
bail in a case registered for the offence
under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal
Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
4. The following order was
passed on 08.05.2024 in Cr. Misc. No.
33492 of 2024:-
Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection
with Sultanganj P.S. Case No. 262 of 2023
in Trial No. 950 of 2023 registered for the
offence under Sections 302/34 of the
Indian Penal Code and under Section 27
of the Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the
petitioner along with three other co-
accused persons have hatched the plan to
commit the loot.
4. As the petitioner was well known in the
locality, it was decided that the he will not
participate in the loot and will wait for the
other co-accused to commit loot and
thereafter, he will give them shelter and the
looted articles will be divided between all
the accused persons and Shanku Sah, the
petitioner.
5. Loot was committed by the accused
persons and while committing the loot, the
deceased was killed. The accused persons
thereafter came to the house of Shanku
Sah, kept the looted articles there and they
left.
6. From the above, it is clear that the
petitioner was involved in the crime from
the beginning to end and he is in custody
since 22.7.2023.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts, this
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.57006 of 2025(3) dt.10-02-2026
3/4
Court is not inclined to grant bail to the
petitioner.
8. Accordingly, this application is
dismissed.
9. The Court below is directed to expedite
the trial of the petitioner and conclude the
same at the earliest.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner
has submitted that the petitioner has
renewed the prayer of bail only on the
ground that the trial is delayed. She has
further submitted that one witness has
been examined who has turned hostile and
thereafter, on 17.12.2024 was a date fixed
on which no witness appeared. She further
says that the petitioner is in custody since
22.07.2023 and he deserves bail.
6. The learned APP for the State has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.
He has relied upon a recent judgment of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of X
vs. State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC OnLine
SC 3539 and has submitted that once the
trial has started, the petitioner in such a
serious case cannot be granted bail.
7. I have considered the
submissions of both the parties.
8.Thecriminals while committing
loot have killed the deceased. The role of
the present petitioner has been considered
in detail in the order dated 08.05.2024
passed by this Court. So far as the
submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is concerned that the petitioner
is in custody since long, the same cannot
be considered once the trial has started
and witnesses are being examined.
9. Accordingly, this application
for regular bail is hereby rejected with a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.57006 of 2025(3) dt.10-02-2026
4/4
direction to the Senior Superintendent of
Police, Bhagalpur to ensure the
appearance of the witnesses on the date
fixed so that the right of speedy trial of the
petitioner is not defeated.”
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the charge has been framed and charge sheet witnesses are
being examined.
5. Considering the gravity of the offence and the fact
that the trial has started, I am not inclined to review my earlier
order.
. 6. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
N.K/-
U
Checking your session…