Patna High Court
Babu Kumar @ Abhishek KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR JHA
Holding
The petition for bail was rejected as no fresh ground for reconsideration was established.
Summary
The petitioner, Babu Kumar, was charged under IPC sections 324, 326, 307, 302 and 34 for allegedly assaulting and causing the death of the informant's brother and his friend. He has been in custody since 21‑06‑2024 and, after a first bail application was rejected, sought bail again, arguing that the trial is delayed with only four of nine prosecution witnesses examined. The State opposed, stating no fresh ground for bail and that custody length is not a ground for release. The trial court reported that the remaining witnesses would be examined and the trial could conclude within six months. The High Court found no new material or fresh ground to reconsider bail and therefore rejected the petition, directing the trial court to expedite disposal and the police to ensure the presence of the remaining witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite prolonged pre‑trial detention and incomplete examination of witnesses.
- Whether any fresh ground exists to reconsider the earlier denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 307, 324, 326, 34
Subjects
- bail
- pre‑trial detention
- IPC offences
- murder
- grievous hurt
- trial delay
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9153 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-138 Year-2024 Thana- DELHA District- Gaya
======================================================
Babu Kumar @ Abhishek Kumar, S/o- Late Biku Ravidas, Resident of
Mohalla- Chhotaki Delha Tekari Road P.S- Delha District- Gaya (Gaya Jee)
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ramakant Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Uma Shankar Prasad Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
3 03-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. In the present case, the petitioner seeks bail in
connection with Sessions Trial No. 95 of 2025, arising out of
Delha P.S. Case No. 138 of 2024, registered for the alleged
offences under Sections 324, 326, 307, 302 and 34 of the Indian
Penal Code.
3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner and other
co-accused persons assaulted the brother of the informant and
his friend with knife and pointed rod and seriously injured them.
Subsequently, they succumbed to their injuries during treatment.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
this is the second attempt of the petitioner to seek bail from this
Court. Earlier, the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9153 of 2026(3) dt.03-04-2026
2/3
vide order dated 01.09.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 23385 of
2025. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is
in custody since 21.06.2024, but the trial has not been
concluded till date. The learned counsel further submits that
there is altogether 9 prosecution witnesses, but only 4 witnesses
have been examined till date. So, there is no likelihood of early
conclusion of trial. The learned counsel further submits that the
petitioner is a student and there is no substantive material
against him.
5. The learned APP vehemently opposes the
submission made on behalf of the petitioner. The learned APP
submits that no fresh ground has been brought on record for
reconsideration of prayer of bail and the period of custody could
not be a ground.
6. A report dated 06.03.2026 has been received from
the learned trial court about the present stage of trial wherein the
learned trial court has submitted that out of 09 charge sheet
witnesses, 4 witnesses have been examined and the trial was
likely to be concluded within six months.
7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and
submission made on behalf of the parties, I do not find any new
ground to reconsider the prayer for bail of the petitioner. Hence,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9153 of 2026(3) dt.03-04-2026
3/3
his prayer for grant of bail is rejected.
8. However, the learned trial court is directed to abide
by its undertaking and dispose of the matter at the earliest.
9. At the same time, the Senior Superintendent of
Police, Gaya Jee is directed to ensure the presence of remaining
prosecution witnesses on the dates fixed before the learned trial
court. In case, the Senior Superintendent of Police fails to
produce the witnesses on the dates fixed, he will be called
before this Court to explain the circumstances.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
V.K.Pandey/-
U T
Checking your session…