Patna High Court
GAYA PASWANversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The High Court upheld its earlier order and denied bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Gaya Paswan, applied for regular bail in a case registered under Sections 191(2), 190, 126(2), 115(2), 109, 125, 352 and 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, relating to the brutal assault and death of a victim. The petitioner argued that he was not named in the FIR and was only identified later, and that he had been in custody since 21‑11‑2024. The State and the informant opposed bail, emphasizing the gravity of the offences and the likelihood of the petitioner’s involvement in the homicide. The High Court, recalling its earlier order dismissing the first bail application, found no ground to revisit that decision and therefore rejected the second bail application. The Court also directed the trial judge to expedite the trial and not grant unnecessary adjournments, while allowing the petitioner to re‑apply for bail if the prosecution causes delay.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a case involving serious offences such as murder and grievous hurt under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
- Whether the earlier denial of bail can be reviewed on a subsequent application.
- Whether the fact that the petitioner was not originally named in the FIR but later identified affects the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103, 109, 115(2), 125, 126(2), 190, 191(2), 352
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- serious offence
- murder
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- trial expeditiousness
- FIR non‑naming
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.68941 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-492 Year-2024 Thana- KONCH District- Gaya
======================================================
GAYA PASWAN Son of Late Ram Prakash Paswan @ Ram Pravesh Paswan
Resident of Village - Konch, P.S.- Konch, District - Gaya.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Krishna Pd. Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Ramakant Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ramchandra Sahni
For the Informant : Mr. Shailesh Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 11-02-2026 Heard Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, the learned Senior
counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State and
Mr. Shailesh Kumar, the learned counsel for the informant.
2. This is the 2nd attempt of the petitioner. The
petitioner seeks bail in connection with Konch P.S. Case No.
492 of 2024 registered for the offence under Sections 191(2),
190, 126(2), 115(2), 109, 125, 352 and 103 of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was
rejected on 23.04.2025 in Cr. Misc. No. 21177 of 2025 which
reads as follows:-
Heard learned counsel for the
petitioners; learned APP for the State and
learned counsel for the informant.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68941 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
2/3
2. The petitioners seek bail in
connection with Konch P.S. Case No. 492 of
2024 registered for the offence punishable under
Sections 191(2), 190, 126(2), 115(2), 109, 125,
352 and 103of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023.
3. As per the prosecution case, the
petitioners and other persons are said to have
brutally assaulted the deceased. The deceased
sustained number of injuries and died on the
next day of the occurrence.
4. It has been submitted by learned
counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners is
not named in the FIR. In theFIR, few accused
persons are named and rest of the accused
persons are not named. During investigation, the
name of the petitioners have come. The
petitioners are in custody since 21.11.2024.
5. Learned counsel for the informant
has opposed the prayer for bail and has
submitted that the accused persons have brutally
killed the deceased after inflicting number of
injuries.
6. Learned counsel for the informant
further submits that he will examine all the
witnesses on the date fixed and he will not delay
the trial.
7. Considering the gravity of the
offence, I am not inclined to grant bail to the
petitioners.
8. Accordingly, the application stands
dismissed.
9. If the trial is delayed by the
prosecution, the petitioners may renew their
prayer for bail.
4. The Report of the Trial Court says that police
papers are to be supplied. The learned counsel for the informant
submits that the charges have been framed and the witnesses are
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68941 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
3/3
to be examined in this case on the next date of hearing i.e., on
10.03.2026.
5. This Court finds no ground to review its earlier
order. Accordingly, this application for regular bail is hereby
rejected.
6. The District and Additional Sessions Judge-19,
Gaya/concerned Trial Judge is directed to expedite the trial and
he will not grant unnecessary adjournments in this case.
7. If the prosecution delays the trial, the petitioner
may renew his prayer for bail.
8. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
Principal District & Sessions Judge, Gaya through FAX for its
compliance forthwith.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Shishir/-
U T
Checking your session…