Patna High Court
Munna RamversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The High Court denied bail, holding that there was no fresh ground to overturn the earlier rejection and that bail is ordinarily not to be entertained once trial of serious offences has commenced.
Summary
Munna Ram and Mina Devi, accused under Sections 420, 372, 373, 376, 506, 34 of the IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act, applied for bail after being in judicial custody since 23 June 2024. Their earlier bail plea was rejected, and the trial is presently at the prosecution‑evidence stage with three of six charge‑sheeted witnesses examined. The State opposed bail, relying on a Supreme Court precedent that bail should rarely be granted once trial of serious offences has commenced. The High Court found no fresh ground to revisit the earlier decision and upheld the rejection of bail, directing the lower court to complete the trial within three months, with a provision to renew the bail application if the deadline is missed. The petition for bail was therefore dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted at an advanced stage of trial for serious offences under the IPC and POCSO Act
- Whether the Supreme Court precedent cited by the State bars bail once prosecution evidence is being recorded
- Whether any fresh ground exists to reconsider the earlier bail denial
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 372, 373, 376, 420, 506
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 8
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO
- serious offences
- trial stage
- high court
- expedited trial
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.71763 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-211 Year-2024 Thana- KUDRA District- Kaimur (Bhabua)
======================================================
1. Munna Ram S/o Ramchandra Ram R/o Village- Ghatawn, P.S.- Kudra,
District- Kaimur at Bhabhua
2. Mina Devi W/o Munna Ram R/o Village- Ghatawn, P.S.- Kudra, District-
Kaimur at Bhabhua
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. X, R/o Village- Ghatawn, P.S.- Kudra, District- Kaimur at Bhabhua
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pawan Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Sadanand Roy, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
3 09-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioners seek bail in connection with POCSO
Case No. 53 of 2024 arising out of Kudra P.S. Case No. 211 of
2024 instituted for the offences under Sections 420, 372, 373,
376, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the
POCSO Act.
3. Earlier vide order dated 03.03.2025 passed in Cr.
Misc. No. 64828 of 2024, regular bail of the petitioners was
rejected by this Court considering the nature and gravity of
offence.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71763 of 2025(3) dt.09-01-2026
2/3
4. In compliance of the order dated 10.10.2025, a report
dated 17.10.2025 with regard to the present stage of trial has
been received. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it appears
that the trial is at the stage of prosecution evidence and there are
six charge-sheeted witnesses and out of which three witnesses
have been examined.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are languishing in judicial custody since 23.06.2024
without any rhymes or reason and have no criminal antecedents.
6. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
grant of bail. Learned APP for the State relied upon a decision
of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC
3539 (X. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.), wherein in paragraph
no. 14, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held has under:
“14. Ordinarily in serious offences like rape,
murder, dacoity, etc., once the trial commences and
the prosecution starts examining its witnesses, the
Court, be it the Trial Court or the High Court
should be loath in entertaining the bail application
of the accused.”
7. There is no fresh ground to consider the bail petition
of the petitioners. From the aforesaid report, it appears that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71763 of 2025(3) dt.09-01-2026
3/3
trial is going on and is at an advance stage.
8. In view of the above, the prayer for bail of the
petitioners is again rejected with a direction to the court below
to expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously
preferably within a period of three months from today. If the
trial is not concluded within the period of three months, as
stated above, the petitioners will be at liberty to renew their
prayer before the court below.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Alok Verma/-
U T
Checking your session…