Patna High Court
Sonu Kumar Gupta @ Sonu GuptaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The Court granted bail, holding that continued pre‑trial detention would be punitive and contrary to Article 21.
Summary
Sonu Kumar Gupta was arrested in connection with a case registered under Sections 309(6) and 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act. An earlier application for regular bail was rejected, and the petitioner has been in custody since 4 August 2024. The petitioner’s counsel argued that only two witnesses have been examined, the co‑accused has been granted bail, and the prolonged pre‑trial detention violates the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The State opposed the bail on the ground of the seriousness of the offences. The High Court, considering the length of custody, the lack of progress in trial and the constitutional principle against punitive pre‑trial incarceration, granted bail on condition of a cash bond and sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite the seriousness of the offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Arms Act.
- Whether continued pre‑trial detention infringes the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
- Whether the trial is likely to conclude in the near future to justify denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109, 309(6)
Subjects
- bail
- pre‑trial detention
- Article 21
- fundamental rights
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Arms Act
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 10392 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-393 Year-2024 Thana- SHERGHATI District- Gaya
======================================================
Sonu Kumar Gupta @ Sonu Gupta S/o Munna Saw R/o Village-
Khanjahanpur, P.O- Khanjahanpur, P.S- Buniyadganj, Manpur, Dist- Gaya Ji,
Bihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar Singh, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
3 11-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Sherghati P.S. Case No. 393 of 2024, instituted for the offence
under Sections 309(6) and 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Earlier vide order dated 16.04.2025 passed in Cr.
Misc. No. 4466 of 2025, regular bail of the petitioner was
rejected by this Court considering the nature and gravity of the
offence, with a direction to the court below to expedite the trial
and conclude the same expeditiously.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the present one is the second attempt for grant of regular bail to
the petitioner. It is mainly submitted that charge in this case is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 10392 of 2026(3) dt.11-03-2026
2/3
framed and till date, only two witnesses have been examined in
this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that
other co-accused has been granted bail by this Bench vide order
dated 25.02.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 12841 of 2026. It has
been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is
in custody since 04.08.2024. 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 petitioner 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 A.P.P. for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case, period of custody of the petitioner
and taking into account the fact that continued detention of the
petitioner would 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 petitioner.
7. Let the petitioner be released on bail on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 10392 of 2026(3) dt.11-03-2026
3/3
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 Sherghati P.S.
Case No. 393 of 2024.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
manish/-
U T
Checking your session…