Dismissed¶26

Dinesh Kumar Kushwaha v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC8 May 2026CR. MISC./19564/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail rejection, second/renewed regular bail application; POCSO Case No. 175/2025; Bettiah Mahila P.S. Case No. 05/2025; PS Case No. 5 of 2025, West Champaran; Sections 65(1), 64, 62 & 3(5) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023; Sections 4 and 6 POCSO Act; trial at advanced stage, 8 of 12 prosecution witnesses examined; earlier bail rejected 23.07.2025 in Cr. Misc. No. 22261 of 2025; petitioner in custody since 05.02.2025 (as submitted by counsel); reliance on 2024 SCC Online SC 3539 (X. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) on reluctance to entertain bail after trial commences; direction to trial court to expedite trial; Patna High Court Criminal Miscellaneous No. 19564 of 2026; Justice Rudra Prakash Mishra.

What did the court decide?

Bail rejected; trial court directed to expedite the trial and conclude it expeditiously. ¶26

Dinesh Kumar Kushwaha Vs The State of Bihar — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Patna HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19564 of 2026

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-5 Year-2025 Thana- MAHILA P.S District- West Champaran

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Dinesh Kumar Kushwaha S/o Alha Prasad Kushwaha @ Alha Mahato R/o Village - Kuwarpatti, P.S - Yogapatti, District - West Champaran

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar

¶8

X (Imaginary name of the Victim) D/o Raja Pandit R/o - Enai, P.S - Rivilganj, District - Chhapra, Saran

¶9

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Tarun Prasad Mandal, APP For the Informant : Mr. Vikash Kumar Shukla, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA

¶11

ORAL ORDER

¶12

4 08-05-2026

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State as also learned counsel for the informant.

¶14

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with POCSO Case No. 175/2025, arising out of Bettiah Mahila P.S. Case No. 05/2025 registered for the offences under Sections 65(1), 64, 62 & 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act.

¶15

This is the second attempt of the petitioner for bail. The petitioner has renewed his prayer for grant of regular bail which was earlier rejected on merit by this Court vide order dated 23.07.2025, passed in Cr. Misc. No. 22261 of 2025, taking into account the nature of the accusation and the gravity

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19564 of 2026(4) dt.08-05-2026 2/3

¶17

of the offence.

¶18

In compliance of the order dated 03.04.2026, a report dated 29.04.2026, with regard to the present stage of trial has been received. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it appears that eight (8) out of twelve (12) prosecution witnesses have been examined in this case.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 05.02.2025 without any rhymes or reason. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no likelihood of the trial being concluded in the near future, hence, petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

¶20

Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for grant of bail. Learned APP and learned counsel for the informant 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:

¶21

“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

¶22

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19564 of 2026(4) dt.08-05-2026 3/3

¶23

loath in entertaining the bail application of the accused.”

¶24

There is no new ground to consider the bail petition

¶25

of the petitioner. From the aforesaid report, it appears that the trial is going on and is at an advance stage.

¶26

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.

¶27

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)

¶28

Raj Kishore/-

¶29

U T

Dinesh Kumar Kushwaha v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Kumar Kushwaha v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Minhaz Alam Vs Raj Kumar Chaudhary

Shreemati Dharamshila Devi Vs None

Anil Kumar Vs Estate of Most. Kaushalya Devi

Guddu Sah @ Guddu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Bambam Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Parmendra Kumar @ Parmendra Manjhi Vs The State of Bihar