Patna High Court
Vinay ChouhanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The court held that continued pre‑trial detention serves no purpose and violates Article 21, and consequently granted bail to the appellant.
Summary
Vinay Chouhan was arrested in Nawada and charged under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Arms Act and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The Exclusive Special Judge denied his bail application, and a coordinate bench of the Patna High Court also rejected bail, citing the seriousness of the offences. The appellant filed a second bail appeal, arguing that he had been in custody since 8 October 2024, only three of seventeen witnesses had been examined, and the trial was unlikely to conclude soon, amounting to a violation of his Article 21 right to liberty. The State and the informant opposed bail. The High Court, considering the prolonged pre‑trial detention and its punitive character, held that continued incarceration served no purpose and contravened Article 21, and therefore allowed the appeal, setting aside the lower court’s order and granting bail on a bond of Rs.15,000 with two sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant's continued pre‑trial detention violates the fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
- Whether bail should be granted under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Arms Act and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in view of the delay in trial.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109(1), 111(3), 190, 191(2), 193(3), 303(2), 326(g), 351(2), 351(3), 352, 61(2)(a)
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(1)(f)(g)(r)(s)(w), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- bail
- pre‑trial detention
- Article 21
- fundamental rights
- SC/ST Act
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4200 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-372 Year-2024 Thana- NAWADA MUFFASIL District- Nawada
======================================================
Vinay Chouhan Son of Mithilesh Chouhan Resident of Village -
Raghunathpur, P.S.- Rahui, District - Nalanda
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Beyas Muni Son of Sanjay Manjhi Resident of village - Dedour Tola
Krishna Nagar at River, P.S.- Muffasil, Dist.- Nawada
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Ms. Rasika, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, SPP
For the Informant : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
4 29-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned
Special Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for
the informant.
2. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant
against the order dated 18.11.2024 passed by learned Exclusive
Special Judge, Special Court, SC/ST Act, Nawada whereby the
prayer for bail of the appellant in connection with Nawada
Muffasil P.S. Case No. 372 of 2024 under Sections 191(2),
193(3), 190, 109(1), 352, 351(2), 351(3), 326(g), 303(2),
111(3), 61(2)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section
27 of the Arms Act, 3(1)(f)(g)(r) (s)(w), 3(2)(va), 3(2)(v) of the
SC/ST Act was rejected.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4200 of 2025(4) dt.29-01-2026
2/3
3. Earlier vide order dated 30.01.2025 passed in Cr.
Appeal (SJ) No. 5651 of 2024, bail of the appellant was rejected
by a coordinate Bench of this Court considering the nature and
gravity of offence.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
present one is the second attempt for grant of regular bail to the
appellant. It is mainly submitted that till date, out of seventeen
witnesses, only three witnesses have been examined. It has
been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the appellant is in
custody since 08.10.2024. Learned counsel further submits that
there is no likelihood of the trial being concluded in the near
future. Learned counsel goes on to submit that the continued
incarceration of the appellant without conclusion of trial
amounts to a gross violation of the fundamental right guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which is reiterated
by Hon’ble Apex Court in plethora of judgments.
5. Learned S.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for
the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to
the appellant.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of
the case, period of custody of the appellant and taking into
account the fact that continued detention of the appellant would
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4200 of 2025(4) dt.29-01-2026
3/3
serve no purpose other than punitive pretrial incarceration,
which is antithetical to the spirit of Article 21 of the
Constitution of India, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the
appellant. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and order dated
18.11.2024 passed by learned Exclusive Special Judge, Special
Court, SC/ST Act, Nawada in connection with Nawada Muffasil
P.S. Case No. 372 of 2024 is hereby set aside.
7. Let the appellant, abovenamed, be released on bail
on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of Court below/concerned Court in connection with
Nawada Muffasil P.S. Case No. 372 of 2024.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Alok Verma/-
U T
Checking your session…