Patna High Court
Roushan Kumar @ Ritik RoushanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The court held that bail could not be granted and dismissed the petitioner's application.
Summary
The petitioner, Roushan Kumar, was charged under Sections 103(1), 61(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 for a daylight murder in which several accused fired at a victim, resulting in a fatal gunshot wound. He applied for regular bail, arguing that only one of the three shooters caused the injury and that he had been in custody since 12‑08‑2024. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing that the incident was a clear case of murder and that the informant was an eye‑witness. The court noted that earlier bail applications had been rejected and that charges were only framed on 19‑11‑2025 after other accused evaded appearance. Considering the seriousness of the offence and the recent framing of charges, the court declined to review its earlier order and dismissed the bail application, indicating that the petitioner may re‑apply if the trial is unduly delayed.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail pending trial for the offences under Sections 103(1), 61(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
- Whether the earlier denial of bail can be revisited in view of the recent framing of charges.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(1), 3(5), 61(2)
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- criminal procedure
- day‑light murder
- charges framed
- trial delay
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.64661 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-117 Year-2024 Thana- BELCHHI District- Patna
======================================================
Roushan Kumar @ Ritik Roushan S/o Kusheshwar Mahto @ Kusho Mahto
@ Kusheshwar Prasad R/o Village - Gopalpur, P.S - Belchhi, District - Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. P. N. Shahi, Sr. Advocate
Mr.Dhaneshwar Prasad Gupta, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Nand Kishore Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 10-02-2026 Heard learned Senior 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 Belchhi P.S. Case
No. 117 of 2024 registered for the offence under Sections
103(1), 61(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner has
been rejected vide order dated 09.04.2025 passed in Cr. Misc.
No. 1508 of 2025, which reads as under:
“Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in
connection with Belchhi P.S. Case No. 117 of
2024 registered for the offence under Sections
103(1), 61(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023.
3. As per the prosecution case, all the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64661 of 2025(3) dt.10-02-2026
2/2
accused persons including this petitioner went to
the shop of the victim and started firing. The
deceased sustained one gun shot injury.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that when three persons have fired and
only one injury has been caused to the victim
therefore the petitioner deserves bail. He is in
custody since 12.08.2024.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.
6. All the accused persons including
this petitioner have fired at the deceased and one
shot hit the deceased. It is a case of day light
murder. The informant is the eye witness.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail to
the petitioner. Accordingly, this application for
regular bail is dismissed.”
4. From the report, it appears that the other accused
persons who were on bail were avoiding appearance and
therefore, charges could not be framed earlier. Now, the charges
have been framed on 19.11.2025.
5. In these circumstances, I am not inclined to review
my earlier order.
6. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.
7. If the trial is delayed by the prosecution, the
petitioner may renew his prayer for bail.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
P. Kumar
U T
Checking your session…