Patna High Court
Ramesh Vidrohi @ Aditya @ Aaditya @ DineshversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
Bail was not granted; the application was dismissed.
Summary
The petitioner, Ramesh Vidrohi, was arrested in connection with a 2016 case alleging assault on a guard, arson, robbery and related offences under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code, the Arms Act and the UAPA. The prosecution alleged that a group of 30‑35 unknown persons carried out the offences and left a pamphlet claiming retaliation for non‑payment of rangdari. The petitioner has been in custody since November 2022 and has twelve similar serious criminal antecedents. This was his third bail application after two earlier rejections, and the charges have already been framed and the trial commenced. The court held that, given the gravity of the offences, the commencement of trial and the absence of any fresh ground for bail, the application could not be entertained. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed, with a direction to the police to ensure witness attendance and a provision that the petitioner may renew his bail plea if the trial is delayed beyond one year due to prosecution non‑cooperation.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to the petitioner despite the seriousness of the offences and the fact that the trial has already commenced.
- Whether the prosecution’s alleged non‑cooperation and delay in witness attendance constitute a sufficient ground to grant bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act, 1959 — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 342, 427, 435, 504, 506
- Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 — s. 15, 17, 20
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- IPC offences
- Arms Act
- UAPA
- trial commencement
- witness attendance
- prosecution delay
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6705 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-20 Year-2016 Thana- MUZAFFARPUR RAIL P.S. District-
Saran
======================================================
Ramesh Vidrohi @ Aditya @ Aaditya @ Dinesh Son of Krishna Prasad
Resident Of Village- Maharajganj Parsouni Police Station- Maharajganj
District -Siwan
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms.Mili Kumari, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 12-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. This is the third attempt on behalf of the petitioner
for grant of bail in connection with Rail Muzaffarpur P.S. Case
No. 20 of 2016 registered for the offences under Section 147,
148, 149, 435, 427, 341, 342, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian
Penal Code; Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 15, 17, 20
of the U.A.P.A. Act.
3. Earlier the bail applications of the petitioner were
rejected twice vide orders dated 19.05.2023 and 31.08.2024
passed in Cr. Misc. Nos. 25806 of 2023 and 53710 of 2024
respectively.
4. The case of the prosecution is that 30-35 unknown
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6705 of 2026(3) dt.12-05-2026
2/3
criminals are said to have assaulted the guard and thereafter, set
ablaze the vehicles and snatched the mobile phone from the
place of occurrence. Further, the accused persons had left a
purcha (pamphlet) stating that the action was a retaliation for
non payment of rangdari.
5. The petitioner is in custody since 18.11.2022
having twelve similar and serious criminal antecedents.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
charges have been framed in the trial.
7. Considering the gravity of the offence, the fact that
the trial has already started and no fresh ground for grant of bail
is made out, I am not inclined to review my earlier order.
8. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.
9. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur
is directed to ensure the attendance of the witnesses so that the
trial is concluded at the earliest. If the trial is not concluded
within one year because of the non- cooperation of the
prosecution then the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail.
10. It is, however, clarified that the observations made
herein are limited to the adjudication of the present bail
application and shall not prejudice the case of the petitioner at
any subsequent stage of the trial and this Court has not express
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6705 of 2026(3) dt.12-05-2026
3/3
any opinion on the merits of the case.
11. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur forthwith through
FAX or e-mail for its compliance.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
P. Kumar
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.