Patna High Court
Nitish KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SHAILENDRA SINGH
Holding
The court declined to grant bail, directing the trial court to frame charges and produce the informant, with a provision to reconsider bail if the prosecution fails to comply.
Summary
Nitish Kumar was arrested in connection with offences under several sections of the BNS and Section 27 of the Arms Act and has been in custody since 18 January 2025 without the trial commencing. He filed a second regular bail petition, arguing prolonged detention and lack of charge framing as grounds for release. The State contended that the earlier bail application had been rejected on merits and that the allegations were serious, with any delay attributable to procedural reasons. The Patna High Court, while acknowledging the delay, was not persuaded to grant bail given the seriousness of the charges, and therefore dismissed the bail petition. The Court directed the trial court to frame charges within one month and to produce the informant as a prosecution witness within a month thereafter, allowing the petitioner to renew his bail plea if the prosecution fails to do so.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail despite more than a year of pre‑trial detention and no framing of charges.
- Whether the seriousness of the offences under the BNS and Arms Act precludes the grant of bail.
- Whether procedural delays in committing the case to the Sessions Court justify bail.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- regular bail
- pre‑trial detention
- charge framing
- informant witness
- serious offences
- Arms Act
- BNS
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5926 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-215 Year-2024 Thana- GURARU District- Gaya
======================================================
Nitish Kumar, S/o Kamlesh Kumar Singh @ Kamlesh Singh ,R/o vill -
Pathra, P.s.- Guraru, Distt.- Gaya
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Aryan Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL ORDER
4 25-02-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned APP for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with
Guraru P.S. Case No. 215 of 2024, registered for the offence(s)
punishable under Section(s)126(2), 115(2), 109, 352, 351(2) and
3(5) of the BNS and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Mr. Aryan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that this is a second attempt of the petitioner to get the
relief of bail and the fresh grounds taken by the petitioner to
renew his prayer are petitioner's long custody period, which has
been more than one year as the petitioner has been languishing
in jail since 18.01.2025 and secondly no commencement of the
trial of the petitioner till date.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5926 of 2026(4) dt.25-02-2026
2/3
counsel appearing for the State submits that the petitioner's
prayer has already been rejected on merits and there is serious
allegation against the petitioner and he was given liberty to
renew his prayer after examination of informant before the trial
court though some delay has occurred in committing the case to
the Court of Sessions but the same may be attributable to certain
procedural reasons.
5. Heard both the sides and perused the relevant
materials on record. The petitioner's earlier prayer has already
been rejected on merits. Though, the petitioner has been
languishing in jail since 18.01.2025 and there has been some
delay in the committing the case to the court of Sessions for
trial, considering the seriousness of the allegation as mentioned
in the latter part of the FIR, this court is not persuaded to take
lenient approach towards the petitioner's prayer.
6. However, the trial court is directed to proceed with
the framing of charges against the petitioner within one month
from the date of receipt of this order's copy as according to the
petitioner's counsel, the petitioner is not going to file a discharge
application and thereafter the prosecution will ensure the
production of the informant for examination as a prosecution
witness within one month from the date of framing of charge. If
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5926 of 2026(4) dt.25-02-2026
3/3
the prosecution fails to produce the informant as a prosecution
witness within one month after framing of charge then the
petitioner may renew his bail prayer.
7. Let the order's copy be sent to the concerned
Superintendent of Police who will ensure the production of the
informant as a prosecution witness on the date fixed by the trial
court.
(Shailendra Singh, J)
Rajiv/-
U T
Checking your session…