Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Biku Kumar @ Brij KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
DISMISSED

Holding

The Court held that there is no ground to grant bail or to review its earlier order, and therefore dismissed the bail application.

Summary

Biku Kumar was arrested on 6 February 2025 in connection with a case registered under Section 309(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. He applied for regular bail, which was first rejected on 18 June 2025. The petitioner argued that the trial had not yet commenced and that the framing of charge against him was being delayed by the co‑accused. The High Court examined whether the delay in charge‑framing justified granting bail or revisiting its earlier order. Finding no sufficient ground to alter its prior decision, the Court dismissed the second bail application and directed the lower court to separate the petitioner’s case, frame charges, and proceed with trial.

Issues considered

  • Whether regular bail can be granted when the trial has not commenced and charge framing is delayed.
  • Whether the High Court can review its earlier order denying bail.
  • Whether the petitioner’s case should be separated and charges framed before trial.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • regular bail
  • charge framing
  • trial delay
  • Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
  • criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.84638 of 2025
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-18 Year-2025 Thana- HASAN BAZAR District- Bhojpur
                 ======================================================
                 Biku Kumar @ Brij Kumar Son of Parshuram Prasad Resident of Village and
                 P.O. and P.S.- Charpokhari in the District of Bhojpur (Ara)

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr.Shiv Shankar Prasad Yadav, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr.Pranav Kumar,APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   05-05-2026                    Heard the parties.

                                2. This is the second attempt of the petitioner for grant

                   of regular bail in connection with Hasanpur P.S. Case No. 18 of

                   2025 registered for the offence under Sections 309(4) of the

                   Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Earlier the bail application of

                   the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 18.06.2025 passed

                   in Cr. Misc. No. 37019 of 2025 which reads as under:-

                                               Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
                                   and learned APP for the State.
                                               2. The petitioner, who is in custody since
                                   06.02.2025, seeks regular bail in connection with
                                   Hasanpur P.S. Case No. 18 of 2025 registered for the
                                   offence under Sections 309(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
                                   Sanhita, 2023.
                                               3. Unknown criminals looted Rs. 59,000/-
                                   from the informant. The motorcycle number of the
              Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84638 of 2025(3) dt.05-05-2026
                                                          2/2




                                        criminals has been given by the informant in the FIR.
                                        The name of the petitioner has come during
                                        investigation in the self-inculpatory statement of the
                                        co-accused. In the scientific investigation, the presence
                                        of the petitioner has come at the place of occurrence.
                                                      4. Considering the aforesaid facts and
                                        circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail to the
                                        petitioner.
                                                      5. Accordingly, this application for regular
                                        bail is hereby rejected.



                                     3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for

                        the petitioner that the trial has not commenced and the framing

                        of charge is being delayed by the co-accused.

                                     4. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court finds no

                        ground to review its earlier order.

                                     5. Accordingly, this application is dismissed again

                        with direction to the concerned court below to separate the case

                        of the petitioner and frame the charges and proceed with the

                        trial.



                                                   (Sandeep Kumar, J)
tusharika/-

U       T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.