Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Ajay KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
DISPOSED

Holding

Bail was denied, and the trial was ordered to be concluded within eleven months.

Summary

The Patna High Court considered a bail petition filed by Ajay Kumar, who is accused under Sections 103(1) and 61(2) of the BNS Act, 2023 for a fatal assault. The petitioner had been in custody for over a year with the trial progressing slowly and no prosecution witnesses examined despite charge framing. He argued that he has no prior criminal record and that the delay violates his right to a speedy trial under Article 21. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the allegations. The Court rejected the bail application, finding the material against the petitioner sufficient to deny liberty. However, invoking Article 21, the Court directed the trial court to complete the trial within eleven months and ordered the police to ensure the appearance of prosecution witnesses.

Issues considered

  • Whether bail should be granted to a person accused of offences under Sections 103(1) and 61(2) of the BNS Act, 2023 given the seriousness of the allegations.
  • Whether the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution mandates expeditious disposal of the case.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • speedy trial
  • Article 21
  • BNS Act, 2023
  • criminal procedure
  • trial delay
  • serious offence

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.81299 of 2025
                   Arising Out of PS. Case No.-560 Year-2024 Thana- GAUTAMBUDHNAGAR District-
                                                          Siwan
                 ======================================================
                 Ajay Kumar S/o Swaminath Prasad, Resident of Panchapakadiya, Padumpati,
                 Kala Dumra, P.S.- G.B. Nagar, District- Siwan.

                                                                             ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                    Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s   :      Mr. N. K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate
                                               Mr. Mithilesh Kr. Upadhyay, Advocate
                                               Ms. Tetara Kumari, Advocate
                                               Mr. Raju Prasad, Advocate
                 For the State          :      Mr. Gulnar Begum, APP
                 For the Informant      :      Mr. Sandeep Kumar Mishra, Advocate
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR
                                       ORAL ORDER

5   25-02-2026                   Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant.

                                 2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with

                   Gautam Budha Nagar P.S. Case No. 560 of 2024 dated

                   05.11.2024, registered for the offences punishable under

                   Sections 103(1) and 61(2) of BNS Act, 2023.

                                 3. The petitioner has moved this Court previously also

                   for regular bail. However, the same was rejected by this Court

                   vide order dated 19.02.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. 9049 of 2025

                   in view of direct allegation of fatal assault by the petitioner to

                   the deceased.

                                 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81299 of 2025(5) dt.25-02-2026
                                            2/3




          petitioner has been in custody since 25.11.2024 i.e. for about

          one year and three months and in this case, trial is proceeding at

          snail pace. Despite framing of charge, no witnesses has been

          examined.

                       5. It has also been stated in paragraph no. 3 of the bail

          petition that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

                       6. However, learned APP for the State vehemently

          opposes the prayer of the petitioner for bail.

                       7. In view of serious allegation and material on record

          against the petitioner, I am not persuaded to enlarge the

          petitioner on bail.

                       8. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner

          stands rejected.

                       9. However, Article 21 of the Constitution of India

          demands that there should be expeditious trial. Hence, learned

          Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within next eleven

          months, failing which the petitioner will be at liberty to renew

          his prayer for bail.

                       10. The Superintendent of Police, Siwan, is also

          directed to ensure that the prosecution witnesses in this case

          appear before learned Trial Court for their examination as

          prosecution witnesses.
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81299 of 2025(5) dt.25-02-2026
                                                       3/3




                                  11. Let a copy of this order be sent to the

                     Superintendent of Police, Siwan as well as learned Trial Court.


                                                                 (Jitendra Kumar, J.)

ravishankar/-

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.