Patna High Court
Manish Kumar @ Anish KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
Bail was denied and the trial was ordered to be expedited within one month.
Summary
Manish Kumar was charged under IPC sections 394 (dacoity), 302 (murder) and Arms Act section 27. He has been in judicial custody since 9 November 2023 and filed a second bail application after the first was rejected. The petitioner argued that all charge‑sheet witnesses had been examined except the investigating officer and that the trial was unlikely to conclude soon, warranting bail. The State opposed, relying on a Supreme Court decision that bail in serious offences should rarely be granted once trial has commenced. The Patna High Court found no new ground for bail, noted that the trial was near conclusion, and therefore rejected the bail petition, directing the lower court to expedite the trial within one month, with a provision to re‑apply if the deadline is missed.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a case involving murder, dacoity and arms offences when the trial is already underway.
- Whether the delay in producing the investigating officer constitutes a sufficient ground for bail.
- Whether the Supreme Court precedent in X vs. State of Rajasthan applies to deny bail in this case.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 394
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- dacoity
- Arms Act
- serious offences
- trial delay
- high court
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8042 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-551 Year-2023 Thana- ROSERA District- Samastipur
======================================================
Manish Kumar @ Anish Kumar Son of Upendra Mahto Resident of Village -
Basahi, Police Station - Cheriya Bariyarpur, District - Begusarai.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prem Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Tarun Prasad Mandal, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
2 03-02-2026 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 on merit by this Court vide order
dated 28.10.2024, passed in Cr. Misc. No. 47649 of 2024, taking
into account the entire facts and circumstances of the case.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 09.11.2023
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8042 of 2026(2) dt.03-02-2026
2/3
without any rhymes or reason, having ten (10) criminal
antecedents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all
the charge sheet witnesses have been examined in this case
except the Investigation Officer, which is pending for a long
time. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that there is no
likelihood of the trial being concluded in the near future. It is
lastly submitted that petitioner has suffered long incarceration,
hence, he 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
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, which is already decided by this Court on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8042 of 2026(2) dt.03-02-2026
3/3
merit. It is also explicit that the trial is on the verge of its
conclusion.
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 one months from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this order. If the trial is not
concluded within the period of one months, as stated above, the
petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer before the court
below.
9. The District Magistrate, Samastipur and the
Superintendent of Police, Samastipur are also directed to take
necessary steps to produce the witness on the date fixed in the
Trial Court so that the trial could be concluded within the
stipulated period.
10. Let this order be communicated to the District
Magistrate, Samastipur and the Superintendent of Police,
Samastipur.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Raj Kishore/-
U T
Checking your session…