Patna High Court
Dilip Kumar @ Dilip Chaudhary @ Deelip Chaudhary @ Dilip ChoudharyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The court held that bail cannot be granted as there are no new grounds and the trial is at an advanced stage in a serious offence.
Summary
The petitioner, Dilip Kumar, sought regular bail in a case (S.T. No. 619 of 2024) involving offences under Sections 302, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. This was his second bail application after the High Court had earlier rejected his plea on 20‑11‑2024. The court noted that six of seven charge‑sheet witnesses had already been examined and the trial was expected to conclude within six months, indicating an advanced stage of proceedings. The State opposed bail, relying on a Supreme Court decision (2024 SCC Online SC 3539) that cautions against granting bail in serious offences once trial has commenced. Finding no new ground for relief and emphasizing the seriousness of the charges, the court rejected the bail petition and directed the trial court to expedite the trial within two months, allowing a fresh application thereafter.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail can be granted to an accused of murder, criminal conspiracy and common intention when the trial is at an advanced stage.
- Whether the petitioner has raised any new ground justifying bail after a prior rejection.
- Whether the seriousness of the offences precludes bail once the prosecution has begun examining its witnesses.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 302, 34
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- criminal conspiracy
- IPC
- high court
- trial stage
- pre‑trial detention
- serious offence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.72910 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-101 Year-2024 Thana- RUNISAIDPUR District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Dilip Kumar @ Dilip Chaudhary @ Deelip Chaudhary @ Dilip Choudhary
S/o Late Jinis Chaudhary R/o Village- Thumma, Ward No. 10, P.S.-
Runnisaidpur, District- Sitamarhi
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sagar Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Anita Kumari, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
3 09-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP
for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with S.T.
No. 619 of 2024, arising out of Runnisaidpur P.S. Case No. 101
of 2024 instituted for the offences under Sections 302, 120B &
34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. This is the second attempt of the petitioner for bail.
The petitioner has renewed his prayer for grant of regular bail
which was earlier rejected on merit by this Court vide order
dated 20.11.2024, passed in Cr. Misc. No. 66305 of 2024, taking
into account the nature and gravity of offence.
4. In compliance of the order dated 14.10.2025, a
report dated 07.11.2025, with regard to the present stage of trial
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72910 of 2025(3) dt.09-01-2026
2/3
has been received. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it
appears that six out of seven charge sheet witnesses have been
examined in this case. It is further reported that trial is likely to
be concluded within a period of six months.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 21.04.2024
without any rhymes or reason. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that there is no likelihood of the trial being
concluded in the near future, hence, petitioner deserves the
privilege of regular bail.
6. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
grant of bail. Learned APP has further 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,
Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as 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.”
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72910 of 2025(3) dt.09-01-2026
3/3
7. There is no new ground to consider the bail petition
of the petitioner. From the aforesaid report, it appears that the
trial is going on and is at an advance stage.
8. In view of the above, the prayer for bail of the
petitioner is again rejected with a direction to the court below to
expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously
preferably within a period of two months from today. If the trial
is not concluded within the period of two months, as stated
above, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer before
the court below.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Raj Kishore/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.