Patna High Court
Pappu Singh @ Pramod SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
Bail is denied as there is no fresh ground and the trial is at an advanced stage.
Summary
Pappu Singh was charged under IPC sections 341, 307, 302, 506, 34 and Section 27 of the Arms Act. He has been in judicial custody since 11 January 2024. After an earlier bail denial, he sought bail again, arguing that only nine of fourteen prosecution witnesses had been examined. The State opposed, relying on a 2024 Supreme Court decision that bail is rarely granted once trial of serious offences has commenced. The Patna High Court found no fresh ground for bail and noted the trial was at an advanced stage, consequently rejecting the bail application and directing the trial court to conclude the trial within three months, with a provision to re‑apply thereafter.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted at an advanced stage of trial for serious offences such as murder and attempted murder.
- Whether any fresh ground exists to justify granting bail despite the trial’s progress.
- Whether the Supreme Court precedent in X vs. State of Rajasthan (2024) is applicable to deny bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 307, 34, 341, 506
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- serious offences
- trial stage
- Indian Penal Code
- Arms Act
- high court
- pre‑trial detention
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.89902 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-16 Year-2024 Thana- GOPALPUR District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
Pappu Singh @ Pramod Singh S/o Late Shyamsunder Singh R/V- Navtolia,
Latra, PS- Gopalpur, Dist- Bhagalpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anuj Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Aditya Narayan Singh.1, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
2 16-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP
for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Gopalpur
P.S. Case No. 16 of 2024, Sessions Trial No. 496 of 2024
instituted for the offences under Sections 341, 307, 302, 506, 34
of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Earlier vide order dated 30.04.2025 passed in Cr.
Misc. No. 5709 of 2025 regular bail of the petitioner was
rejected by this Court considering the stage of the trial, nature of
accusation and gravity of offence. However, the liberty was
granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail if the trial is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89902 of 2025(2) dt.16-01-2026
2/3
not concluded within a period of six months.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 11.01.2024
without any rhymes or reason. Learned counsel further
submitted that out of total 14 prosecution witnesses, only 9 have
been examined till date.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
grant of bail. Learned APP for the State 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 has under:
“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.”
6. There is no fresh ground to consider the bail petition
of the petitioner as also the trial is at the advanced stage.
7. 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 expeditiously
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89902 of 2025(2) dt.16-01-2026
3/3
preferably within a period of three months from today. If the
trial is not concluded within the period of three months, as
stated above, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer
before the court below.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Alok Verma/-
U T
Checking your session…