Patna High Court
Vivek Kumar MandalversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
In the absence of any fresh ground, bail cannot be granted once the trial has commenced for serious offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Summary
Vivek Kumar Mandal was charged under Sections 103(1), 238 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in a case registered as Singhwara P.S. Case No. 284 of 2024. He applied for bail after being in judicial custody since 22‑10‑2024, arguing that only one witness had been examined and the trial was unlikely to conclude soon. The State opposed bail, relying on a Supreme Court decision that once trial commences for serious offences, courts should be loath to grant bail. The Patna High Court found no fresh ground to revisit the earlier bail denial and therefore rejected the bail petition, directing the lower court to complete the trial within five months, with a provision to renew the bail application if the deadline is missed. The order reiterates the principle that bail is generally unavailable after trial has started for serious crimes unless new circumstances arise.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to an accused of serious offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita after the trial has commenced and witnesses have been examined.
- Whether any fresh ground exists to justify granting bail in the present case.
- Whether the direction to expedite the trial within a specified period is appropriate.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(1), 238, 3(5)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- serious offences
- trial commencement
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- expedited trial
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9050 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-284 Year-2024 Thana- SINGHWARA District- Darbhanga
======================================================
Vivek Kumar Mandal S/O Vedanand Mandal Resident of Village-
Chamanpur, P.S- Singhwara, District- Darbhanga.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar Karn, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Binod Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
2 06-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Singhwara P.S. Case No. 284 of 2024, Sessions Trial No. 429 of
2025 instituted for the offences under Sections 103(1), 238, 3(5)
of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. Earlier vide order dated 08.07.2025 passed in Cr.
Misc. No. 19641 of 2025, regular bail of the petitioner was
rejected by this Court considering the specific allegation against
the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly submits that
the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 22.10.2024
without any rhymes or reason. He further submitted that up till
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9050 of 2026(2) dt.06-02-2026
2/3
now, only one witness has been examined and there is no
likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
grant of bail stating that trial has commenced and two witnesses
have also been examined. 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.
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
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9050 of 2026(2) dt.06-02-2026
3/3
the court below.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Alok Verma/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.