Patna High Court
Krishna Kumar @ Krishan KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The Court held that once trial commences in serious offences such as murder, bail should not be entertained.
Summary
Krishna Kumar petitioned for bail in a murder and arms‑related case (Sections 103(1), 61(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25(1‑Ba), 26, 27 & 35 of the Arms Act). The High Court had earlier denied regular bail, noting substantial material against him. The petitioner argued he was falsely implicated, not named in the FIR, and that a co‑accused had been granted bail. The State and the informant opposed bail, emphasizing that trial had already commenced with one of eight charge‑sheet witnesses examined, and relied on a Supreme Court decision cautioning against bail in serious offences once trial starts. The Court, following that precedent, rejected the bail application, directing the trial court to expedite proceedings and allowing a fresh bail petition after three months if the trial remains pending.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to an accused of murder and arms offences after the trial has commenced.
- Whether the petitioner’s claim of false implication and lack of eyewitnesses warrants bail despite serious charges.
- Whether the Supreme Court’s observation in X v. State of Rajasthan (2024) is applicable to deny bail in the present case.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-B)a, 26, 27, 35
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(1), 3(5), 61(2)
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- arms act
- trial commencement
- high court
- serious offences
- pre‑trial detention
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.83794 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-246 Year-2024 Thana- BENIPATTI District- Madhubani
======================================================
Krishna Kumar @ Krishan Kumar S/o Abodh Yadav R/o Village - Kerwa, P.S
- Saharghat, District - Madhubani
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Kumari Pallavi, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Lalan Kumar, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Ankit Raj, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
3 09-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP
for the State as also learned counsel for the informant. Perused
the case diary.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Benipatti P.S. Case No. 246 of 2024 instituted for the offence
under Sections 103(1), 61(2) & 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25(1-B)a, 26, 27 & 35 of the Arms
Act. Earlier vide order dated 14.11.2025, passed in Cr. Misc.
No. 63307 of 2025, regular bail of the petitioner was rejected by
this Court, taking into account ample material against the
petitioner.
3. As per prosecution case, the accusation against the
petitioner is of being involved in committing the murder of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83794 of 2025(3) dt.09-02-2026
2/3
informant’s father by firing.
4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner
that the petitioner is in custody since 16.02.2025. Petitioner
bears two criminal antecedents, as per disclosure made in
paragraph No. 3 of the bail application.
5. It has been further submitted by the petitioner’s
counsel that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present
case. Petitioner is not named in the FIR. Name of the petitioner
has transpired during investigation. There is no eye witness to
the occurrence. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly
submits that identically situated co-accused person has been
enlarged on regular bail by this Court in second attempt vide
order dated 09.01.2026, passed in Cr. Misc. No. 86410 of 2025.
6. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for
the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of
bail to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the informant
fervently submits that trial in this case has commenced and one
(1) out of eight (8) charge sheet witness has been examined.
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:
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83794 of 2025(3) dt.09-02-2026
3/3
“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. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case and since trial has commenced in this case, this
Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Prayer for
grant of bail is again rejected.
8. The Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as
expeditiously as possible without any undue delay and
unnecessary adjournments.
9. However, petitioner will be at liberty to renew his
prayer for bail, if the trial is not concluded within a period of
three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of
this order.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Raj Kishore/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.