Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Rohit Kumar @ BuchchaversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL REJECTED

Holding

The court held that bail could not be granted as there were no new grounds and the trial is at an advanced stage.

Summary

Rohit Kumar was arrested in connection with a case registered under Sections 394 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. He had earlier been denied bail and, after remaining in judicial custody since November 2023, filed a second regular bail petition. The trial has progressed to the stage where charges were framed, six prosecution witnesses have been examined and only the evidence of the investigating officer and a private witness remains, with the court expecting to conclude the trial within six months. The petitioner argued that his continued custody was without reason, while the State opposed bail, noting the seriousness of the offences and the advanced stage of trial. The court found no new ground to revisit the earlier decision and therefore rejected the bail petition, directing the lower court to expedite the trial within two months.

Issues considered

  • Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail at the present advanced stage of trial for offences under Sections 394, 302 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • Indian Penal Code
  • Section 394
  • Section 302
  • Arms Act
  • judicial custody
  • trial stage
  • serious offences

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.77933 of 2025
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-551 Year-2023 Thana- ROSERA District- Samastipur
                 ======================================================
                 Rohit Kumar @ Buchcha Son of Lakshmi Mahto @ Laxmi Mahto R/o
                 Sakruli, P.S. - Cheriya Bariyarpur, District - Begusarai.
                                                                                  ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                           ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Kumar Rajeev, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Lakshmi Kant Sharma, 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 Rosera

                   P.S. Case No. 551 of 2023 instituted for the offences under

                   Sections 394, 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of

                   the Arms Act.

                           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 by this Court vide order dated

                   04.07.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 52460 of 2024 taking into

                   consideration the nature and gravity of the offence as also stage

                   of the trial.

                           4.      In compliance of the order dated 13.11.2025, a

                   report dated 21.11.2025 with regard to the present stage of trial

                   has been received. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77933 of 2025(3) dt.09-01-2026
                                                         2/2




                       appears that charge has been framed against the petitioner and

                       other co-accused persons on 02.04.2024. It is further reported

                       that total six prosecution witnesses have been examined. The

                       case is pending for evidence of I.O. and other private witness.

                       Non-bailable warrant has been issued on private witness and

                       summon has been issued for examination of rest official

                       witnesses. The 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 02.11.2023

                       without any rhymes or reason.

                               6.      Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed

                       the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner.

                               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.


                                                                   (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Rajorshi/-
U      T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.