Patna High Court
Babloo Lal @ Babloo Kumar @ Amit Lal @ Amit kumar SrivastavaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The court held that bail could not be granted and dismissed the petitioner's bail application.
Summary
The petitioner, Babloo Lal, was charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act for the murder of a collection agent. He sought bail for the second time after an earlier bail application was rejected. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner had a financial dispute with the deceased, informed other criminals, and that call detail records placed him at the scene, indicating his participation. The petitioner contended he was falsely implicated, had only one prior criminal antecedent, and that the trial had just begun with only one witness examined. The High Court, noting the gravity of the murder charge, the commencement of trial, and the evidentiary material linking the petitioner, declined to grant bail and dismissed the application, directing the trial court to expedite the proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused in a murder case (IPC Sec. 302) when the trial has commenced and there is evidentiary material suggesting involvement.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- IPC 302
- Arms Act 27
- trial commencement
- call detail record
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.73608 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-258 Year-2022 Thana- ARA MUFFSIL District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Babloo Lal @ Babloo Kumar @ Amit Lal @ Amit kumar Srivastava S/o Late
Birendra Kumar Srivastava @ Birendra Lal R/o Village- Semariyan, P.S.- Ara
Muffasil, District- Bhojpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajiv Nayan, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
9 09-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This is the second attempt on behalf of the
petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Ara Muffasil P.S.
Case No.258 of 2022, registered for the offence under Sections
302 of the I.P.C. and 27 of Arms Act.
3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner has
been rejected vide order dated 11.10.2023 passed in Cr. Misc.
No.51556 of 2023, which reads as under:-
“Heard learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, learned APP for the
State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection
with Ara Muffasil P.S. Case No. 258 of 2022
registered for the offence punishable under Section
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73608 of 2024(9) dt.09-02-2026
2/3
302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the
Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the
deceased who was a collection Agent of a
company while returning after collecting money
was killed by unknown criminals.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner has got one criminal
antecedent and he is in custody since 15.08.2022.
He further submits that he has been falsely
implicated in this case and has no connection with
the alleged occurrence.
5. During investigation, it has come that
the deceased had collected money from the
petitioner also and thereafter, the petitioner had
informed other criminals and they committed the
murder of the deceased when the petitioner was
identified by the deceased. The Call Detail Record
(CDR) location of the petitioner also supports his
participation in the crime.
6. Learned APP appearing for the State
opposes the prayer for regular bail of the
petitioner.
7. In view of the above, I am not inclined
to grant bail to the petitioner who is the main
prayer in the murder though some other co-
accused have been granted bail.
8. This application is dismissed with a
direction to the trial Court to conclude the trial at
the earliest.”
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73608 of 2024(9) dt.09-02-2026
3/3
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
trial has started and till date one witness has been examined.
5. Considering the gravity of the offence and the fact
that the trial has started, I am not inclined to review my earlier
order.
6. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.
7. The Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
mdrashid/-
U T
Checking your session…