Patna High Court
Ranjeet ChaudharyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The court denied bail, finding no new ground to overturn the earlier refusal.
Summary
Ranjeet Chaudhary was charged under IPC sections 302, 120B, 34 and Arms Act sections 25(1‑B)(a) and 27 for a serious offence. He has been in judicial custody since 8 October 2024 and earlier bail applications were rejected. The petitioner argued that he is languishing without reason and that co‑accused have been granted bail, while the State highlighted his thirty prior criminal convictions. The court noted that the trial is ongoing with only three of fifteen witnesses examined and found no new ground to revisit the earlier decision. Consequently, the bail petition was denied and the trial was directed to be completed within five months, with a provision to re‑apply if the deadline is missed.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner despite the gravity of the offences (murder, conspiracy, arms offences) and his extensive criminal antecedents.
- Whether any change in circumstances since the earlier bail denial warrants a fresh consideration of bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-B)(a), 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 302, 34
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- criminal conspiracy
- arms act
- criminal antecedents
- trial expedite
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.82347 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-382 Year-2023 Thana- RANIYATALAB District- Patna
======================================================
Ranjeet Chaudhary Son of Late Ramadhar Chaudhary @ Late Ramadhar
Choudhary R/o vill.- Belaur, P.S.- Udwantnagar, District - Bhojpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Kanchan Kumari, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Shambhu Narayan Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
3 09-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Ranitalab P.S. Case No. 382 of 2023, instituted for the offences
under Sections 302, 120B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, read
with Sections 25(1-B)(a) and 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
11.07.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 17329 of 2025 taking into
account the nature and gravity of the offence as also the criminal
antecedents of the petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82347 of 2025(3) dt.09-02-2026
2/3
4. In compliance of the order dated 12.12.2025, a
report dated 23.12.2025 with regard to the present stage of trial
has been received. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it
appears that charge has been framed against the petitioner on
19.07.2025 and out of fifteen charge-sheeted witnesses, only
three witnesses have been examined in this case. It is further
reported that the trial is likely to be concluded within a period of
nine months.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 08.10.2024
without any rhymes or reason. It is further submitted that other
co-accused have been granted regular bail by this Court vide
order dated 10.10.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 58744 of 2025
and Cr. Misc. No. 61220 of 2025.
6. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for
the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of
bail to the petitioner and has submitted that the petitioner bears
thirty criminal antecedents.
7. There is no new ground to consider the bail petition
of the petitioner. From the aforesaid report, it appears that the
trial is in progress. Considering the huge number of criminal
antecedents of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82347 of 2025(3) dt.09-02-2026
3/3
bail to the petitioner.
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 preferably within a
period of five months from today. If the trial is not concluded
within the period of five months, as stated above, the petitioner
will be at liberty to renew his prayer before the court below.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Rajorshi/-
U T
Checking your session…