Patna High Court
Laxman Prasad @ Lakshman PrasadversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The bail petition was dismissed as there was no new ground and the trial was already underway.
Summary
Laxman Prasad was charged under IPC sections 376, 506, 34 and POCSO Act sections 4, 6, 8 for alleged rape and related offences. He applied for regular bail for the second time after an earlier bail denial. The trial court had framed charges on 20‑12‑2025, examined the victim, and indicated that the trial could conclude within three months. The State and the informant opposed bail, relying on a 2024 Supreme Court decision that bail in serious offences should be granted only reluctantly. The Patna High Court found no new ground for reconsideration, noted that the trial was ongoing, and therefore rejected the bail petition, directing the lower court to expedite the trial and allowing a fresh bail application if the trial exceeds four months.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to an accused in serious offences such as rape and child sexual offences when the trial is in progress and the victim has been examined.
- Whether any new ground exists to revisit the earlier denial of bail.
- How the Supreme Court precedent in X vs. State of Rajasthan (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3539) applies to the present bail application.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 183
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 376, 506
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 4, 6, 8
Subjects
- bail
- serious offences
- rape
- POCSO
- trial expeditiousness
- Supreme Court precedent
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.83789 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-351 Year-2024 Thana- GAURICHAK District- Patna
======================================================
Laxman Prasad @ Lakshman Prasad Son of Late Amlesh Prasad R/o Village-
Beldari Chak, P.S.- Gaurichak, District- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Malti Devi Wife of Birendra Kumar R/o Village- Beldari Chak, P.S.-
Gaurichak, District- Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raghav Prasad, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shantanu Kumar, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
4 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
Gaurichak P.S. Case No. 351 of 2024, instituted for the offences
under Sections 376, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, read with
Sections 4,6 and 8 of POCSO 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
04.04.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 13051 of 2025 taking into
account the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83789 of 2025(4) dt.09-02-2026
2/3
4. In compliance of the order dated 28.11.2025, a
report dated 05.01.2026 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 accused of this
case on 20.12.2025 and the victim has also been examined in
this case. It is further reported that the trial is likely to be
concluded within a period of three months.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 21.07.2024
without any rhymes or reason and has got no criminal
antecedent.
6. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for
the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of
bail to the petitioner. It is submitted that the trial is in progress,
charge has been framed against the petitioner and the victim has
already been examined in this case. Learned counsel for the
informant 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, the Hon’ble
Apex Court has held as under:
“14. Ordinarily in serious offences like rape,
murder, dacoity, etc., once the trial
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83789 of 2025(4) dt.09-02-2026
3/3
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. From the aforesaid report, it appears that the
trial is going on.
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. However, if the trial is not concluded within
the period of four months, the petitioner will be at liberty to
renew his prayer before the court below.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Rajorshi/-
U T
Checking your session…