Patna High Court
Munil PatelversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
Bail was denied because the gravity of the offence and the accused’s role in delaying the trial outweighed the petitioner's claim of custodial hardship.
Summary
The petitioner, Munil Patel, was arrested in connection with a case registered under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly snatching a motorcycle. He has been in custody since October 2023 and has prior criminal antecedents. The petitioner applied for bail, arguing that the trial was being delayed because the prosecution had not accepted the police report. The court noted that the accused, including the petitioner, were contributing to the delay and emphasized the seriousness of the offence. Consequently, the court refused to grant bail and upheld its earlier order, directing the trial court to expedite the proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused charged with robbery under Section 392 IPC given the seriousness of the offence and the accused's criminal antecedents
- Whether alleged delay in trial caused by the accused or prosecution affects the grant of bail
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 392
Subjects
- bail
- robbery
- Section 392 IPC
- criminal antecedents
- trial delay
- custody
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10846 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-259 Year-2023 Thana- PIPRA District- East Champaran
======================================================
Munil Patel S/O Raghav Patel @ Raghav Raut @ Ragho patel @ Ragho raut
Resident of village- Kaithawaliya, P.S.- Kalyanpur, District- East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nirmala Kumari, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
8 09-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This is the second attempt on behalf of the petitioner
for grant of bail in connection with Pipra P.S. Case No.259 of
2023, registered for the offence under Sections 392 of the Indian
Penal Code.
3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner has been
rejected vide order dated 26.06.2024 passed in Cr. Misc.
No.42972 of 2024, which reads as under:-
“Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Pipra P.S. Case No. 259 of 2023 registered for the
offence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the prosecution case, the motorcycle
of the petitioner was snatched and during
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10846 of 2025(8) dt.09-02-2026
2/2
investigation, the role of the petitioner has come in
the same.
4. The petitioner is in custody since 9.10.2023
and he has criminal antecedents also.
5. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court
is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
6. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.
7. The Court below is directed to expedite the
trial of the petitioner and conclude the same at the
earliest. If the trial is delayed due to the fault of the
prosecution side, then the petitioner may renew his
prayer for bail.”
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for
bail of the petitioner on the ground of custody and delay in trial.
5. From the report, it appears that the accused persons
are delaying the trail by not accepting the police paper.
6. Considering the gravity of the offence and the fact
that the delaying acts by the accused persons including the
petitioner, I am not inclined to review my earlier order.
7. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
mdrashid/-
U T
Checking your session…