Patna High Court
Bibhishan Tanti @ Bibhishan Kr. TantiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
Bail was denied as the trial was at an advanced stage and no new grounds were presented.
Summary
The petitioner, Bibhishan Tanti, was arrested in connection with offences under Section 96 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012. He applied for regular bail for the second time after his earlier bail plea was rejected. The trial court report indicated that all six charge‑sheet witnesses had been examined and the trial was expected to conclude in three to four months. The State opposed bail, relying on a Supreme Court decision (X v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC Online SC 3539) which cautions against granting bail in serious offences once the trial has commenced. The Patna High Court held that there were no new grounds to revisit the bail application and dismissed the petition, directing the lower court to expedite the trial within two months and allowing a fresh bail application thereafter.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate approach to granting bail for a person accused of serious offences under Section 96 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 8 of the POCSO Act when the trial is at an advanced stage?
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- serious offence
- POCSO
- trial stage
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- minor victim
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.79110 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-397 Year-2024 Thana- BANKA District- Banka
======================================================
Bibhishan Tanti @ Bibhishan Kr. Tanti Son of Basudeo Tanti Resident of
village - Louni, P.S.- Barahat, District - Banka.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Gopal Yadav Son of Sahdeo Yadav Resident of village - Mangra, P.S. and
District - Banka.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Pushpa Sinha.1, 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 Banka
P.S. Case No. 397 of 2024 instituted for the offences under
Section 96 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Subsequently,
Section 8 of the POCSO Act was also added.
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 16.04.2025, passed in Cr. Misc. No. 3077 of 2025, taking
into account the nature and gravity of the offence coupled with
the fact that the victim is minor; hence her consent is not
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79110 of 2025(3) dt.09-01-2026
2/3
admissible in the eye of law.
4. In compliance of the order dated 14.11.2025, a
report dated 21.11.2025 with regard to the present stage of trial
has been received. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it
appears that all six charge sheet witnesses have been examined
in this case. It is further reported that trial is likely to be
concluded within a period of three to four months.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 26.09.2024,
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 may be enlarged
on 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79110 of 2025(3) dt.09-01-2026
3/3
Trial Court or the High Court
should be loath in entertaining
the bail application of the
accused.”
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…