Patna High Court
Dilip Kumar Singh @ Dilip KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The regular bail application of the petitioner is rejected.
Summary
Dilip Kumar Singh was charged under Sections 302, 120(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code in a 2016 case. He applied for regular bail for the third time after earlier rejections by this Court and the Supreme Court. The trial had examined all prosecution witnesses except the investigating officer and a doctor, causing a four‑month delay. The petitioner argued that the pending witnesses justified bail and urged the trial court to expedite the remaining proceedings. The Court, after hearing counsel for both sides, declined to grant bail and instead directed the trial court to complete the trial within six months, provided only the doctor and I.O. remain to be examined.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate decision on the petitioner's application for regular bail?
- Should the trial be expedited given the delay caused by the non‑appearance of the investigating officer and doctor?
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120(B), 302, 34
Subjects
- bail
- IPC 302
- criminal conspiracy
- trial delay
- expeditious trial
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7565 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-44 Year-2016 Thana- PAKRIDAYAL District- East Champaran
======================================================
Dilip Kumar Singh @ Dilip Kumar Son of Rajendra Prasad Resident of
Village - Khemai Patti, Police Station - Minapur, District - Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Neeraj Kumar Alias Sanidh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 23-04-2026 1. Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner Mr.
Vindhya Kesri Singh, learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Pakaridayal P.S. Case No.44 of 2016, registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 302, 120(B) and 34 of the Indian
Penal Code.
3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner fairly
submits that this is the third attempt of the petitioner to seek
regular bail. It is also submitted that after rejection of regular
bail by this Court, the petitioner had moved before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court seeking regular bail but then the same was also
rejected. It is next submitted that trial in the case commenced
and all the prosecution witnesses have been examined, except
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7565 of 2026(2) dt.23-04-2026
2/2
the I.O. and the doctor, who are official witnesses. It is
submitted that for the last four months, the trial is pending since
the I.O. and the doctor have not appeared. It is thus submitted
that the case be disposed of with a direction to the learned trial
court to expedite the trial.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant does not oppose the said submission of the learned
senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the
Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.
6. The regular bail application of the petitioner is
rejected.
7. However, the learned trial court is directed to
expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within a
period of six months from today, if only doctor and I.O. remains
to be examined.
8. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned trial
court.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…