Patna High Court
Budhan ShahversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
The Court held that bail could not be granted as the petitioner’s long period of abscondence and the gravity of the charges warranted denial of bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Budhan Shah, was charged under sections 302, 120B, 328 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code for the alleged murder of his brother-in‑law by poisoning. He claimed he was falsely implicated because he is merely the brother of the deceased's wife and asserted no criminal antecedent. The prosecution highlighted that the petitioner had been absent for about twelve years after the 2012 FIR and was only taken into custody on 23 May 2025, and that co‑accused had already been convicted. The State opposed bail, arguing that the petitioner’s long abscondence and the seriousness of the offences made him a flight risk and could impede the trial. The Court, after hearing both sides, refused to grant regular bail, noting the petitioner’s prolonged evasion of the law and the conviction of co‑accused. The trial court was directed to expedite the pending trial.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail can be granted to an accused who has absconded for twelve years in a murder case.
- Whether the seriousness of the offences (IPC 302, 120B, 328, 34) and the conviction of co‑accused preclude bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 302, 328, 34
Subjects
- regular bail
- murder
- IPC
- abscondence
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.622 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-47 Year-2012 Thana- PATAHI District- East Champaran
======================================================
Budhan Shah S/o Sheodhari Sah R/o Village- Saraiya Gopal, P.S- Patahi,
Dist- East Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Yashraj Bardhan, Advocate
Mr.Abhimanyu Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Shailendra Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL ORDER
4 01-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has preferred this application for
grant of regular bail in connection with Patahi P.S. Case no.47
of 2012, registered under sections 302, 120B, 328 and 34 of the
Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states
that his brother who had gone to his in-laws place called the
informant to tell him that his wife was not ready to come home
and she had fallen in bad company. It is further stated that
subsequently it transpired that his brother has been poisoned to
death by the accused persons that is the family members of his
wife.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case only for the
reason that he happens to be the brother of the wife of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.622 of 2026(4) dt.01-04-2026
2/2
deceased. No such occurrence as alleged in the FIR has taken
place. The manner of occurrence is other than what has been
narrated therein. The petitioner is in custody since 23.5.2025
and has no criminal antecedent. Charge has been framed in the
learned trial Court and he undertakes to cooperate in the trial.
5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP
for the State, who submits that in connection with an FIR
registered in the year 2012, the petitioner absconded till he was
taken into custody on 23.5.2025. It is submitted that in the FSL
report, traces of poison has been found. The co-accused who
were tried have been convicted. Once the petitioner is enlarged
on bail, he will not permit the trial to proceed.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
taking into consideration the allegations against the petitioner in
the FIR together with the petitioner having absconded for
almost 12 years till he was taken into custody in an FIR of the
year 2012 only on 23.5.2025 together with the trial of the co-
accused having ended in conviction, the Court is not inclined to
enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.
7. Learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Shiv/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.