Patna High Court
Shubham KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The court held that bail could not be granted to the petitioner at the present stage of the proceedings.
Summary
The petitioner, Shubham Kumar, was charged under Section 364(A) of the Indian Penal Code for kidnapping the informant's son. He applied for bail after his earlier bail request was denied on 26-10-2024 and has been in custody since 17-12-2023. The prosecution and the informant opposed bail, noting that only six charge‑sheet witnesses remain and the informant promised to examine them within four months. The court found no sufficient reason to grant bail at this stage and rejected the petition. However, the court directed the trial court to complete the trial within six months, warning that if the trial is not concluded, the petitioner may renew his bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused under Section 364(A) IPC at the stage where charges have been framed and only a few witnesses remain.
- Whether the trial can be expedited within a six‑month period to justify a future bail consideration.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 364(A)
Subjects
- bail
- kidnapping
- Section 364A IPC
- criminal procedure
- trial expeditious
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.62741 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1231 Year-2023 Thana- SHERGHATI District- Gaya
======================================================
Shubham Kumar S/O Ramashankar Singh R/O Village- Paneri, P.S.- Bihta,
District- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dr. Anjani Pd. Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh
For the Informant Mr. Ram Kumar Mishra
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
4 20-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner has renew his prayer for bail in a
case registered for the offence punishable under Sections
364(A) of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The petitioner is said to have kidnapped the son of
the informant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has renewed his prayer for bail after rejection of the
same vide order dated 26.10.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 5976
of 2024. The petitioner is now in custody since 17.12.2023 and
there has not been any substantial progress in the case but for
the fact that the charges were framed on 14.05.2025.
5. Learned APP for the State and informant have
opposed the application for bail. Learned counsel for the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.62741 of 2025(4) dt.20-02-2026
2/2
informant submits that there are only six charge-sheet witnesses
in this case and he undertakes to get the witnesses examined
within a period of four months.
6. Considering all these facts and circumstances,
this Court finds no reason to grant bail to the petitioner at this
stage. Accordingly, his prayer for bail is rejected in connection
Sherghati P.S. Case No. 1231 of 2023.
7. However, learned court below is directed to
proceed with the trial expeditiously without giving unnecessary
adjournments and conclude the same preferably within a period
of six months as the informant also undertakes to bring all his
witnesses within a period of four months. It is made clear that if
the trial is not concluded within the stipulated period, the
petitioner is granted liberty to renew his prayer for bail.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
devendra/-
U T
Checking your session…