Patna High Court
Sajan Kumar ThakurversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The bail petition was dismissed as the court held that at the advanced stage of trial, bail could not be granted despite the alleged illegal detention.
Summary
The petitioner, Sajan Kumar Thakur, was arrested for murder under Section 103/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act after the informant’s brother was found dead and allegedly identified the petitioner as his assailant. The petitioner filed a bail application claiming illegal detention, arguing that he was not produced before a magistrate within the statutory 24‑hour period. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offence, the existence of eyewitness testimony, a co‑accused confession, the petitioner’s nine prior criminal convictions, and that the trial was already underway with half the witnesses examined. The High Court held that the issue of illegal detention could not be entertained at this advanced stage of the trial and that the gravity of the charges and the petitioner’s antecedents warranted denial of bail. Consequently, the bail petition was rejected, and the trial court was directed to expedite the remaining witness examinations within six months.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted on the ground of alleged illegal detention when the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours.
- Whether the seriousness of the offences (murder and illegal possession of arms) and the advanced stage of trial preclude the grant of bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents affect the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103/3(5)
Subjects
- bail
- illegal detention
- 24‑hour production rule
- murder
- arms act
- trial stage
- criminal antecedents
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14691 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-228 Year-2024 Thana- DARBHANGA District- Darbhanga
======================================================
Sajan Kumar Thakur S/O Late Anil Thakur Resident of Village- Jitugachhi
Fulwari, P.S.- Town, District- Darbhanga
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Harsh Singh, Advocate
Mr. Ugranath Mallik, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Padmanabh Kashyap, Advocate
Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
5 24-02-2026 Heard Mr. Harsh Singh, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. Padmanabh Kashyap, learned counsel for the
informant and Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, the learned APP for
the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for
the offence punishable under Section 103/3(5) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The case of the proseuction is that the
petitioner and another took the brother of the informant on
motorcycle from his house and, subsequently, informant’s
brother was found dead. The deceased before his death made a
call to the informant on her mobile and told the name of the
petitioner that he along with other tried to kill him.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14691 of 2025(5) dt.24-02-2026
2/5
4. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that he is not pressing the present application on merits
but confines himself to the ground of illegal detention of the
petitioner. He invites the attention of this Court to para-29 of the
case diary which contains the confessional statement of one Md.
Adil recorded on 07.112024 at 9:55 pm, however para-32
indicates the arrest of the petitioner and also indicates the time
as 10:05 pm on same day i.e. on 07.11.2024. Para-38 further
indicates that the petitioner was forwarded on 09.11.2024 to the
Court. On the basis of such facts, it has been submitted that the
detention of the petitioner had been illegal as he was not
produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours which is the
mandate of law, as such, he deserves to be granted bail on this
score alone. To buttress his submissions, learned counsel for the
petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court
in the case of Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Subhash
Sharma reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 240, wherein it has
been held that if the accused is not produced to the nearest
learned Magistrate within 24 hours, the grant of bail to him by
the concerned High Court is completely justified, as it involves
the question of infringement of the fundamental rights of the
accused guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14691 of 2025(5) dt.24-02-2026
3/5
and the arrest in such cases stands vitiated and when the arrest
itself is illegal/vitiated, bail cannot be denied. It is further
pointed out that the petitioner is in custody since 07.11.2024 and
after framing of charge four out of eight witnesses have been
examined.
5. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for
the informant vehemently opposed the bail petition on the
ground that the petitioner is in custody since 07.11.2024 and
prayer for bail on the ground of illegal detention is being taken
in the year 2026. It would have been in all propriety to raise
such issue of illegal detention at a much earlier stage by way of
challenging such illegal detention and not when the trial has
proceeded, charges have been framed and the witnesses are
being examined. It has further been argued that even on merits,
the deceased has been brutally done to death and besides the
fact that his name appears in the First Information Report itself
with the allegation that he was the one, who had taken the
deceased along with him and the subsequent disclosure made
by the deceased himself of the name of the petitioner with
regard to causing his death would also amount to the last words
of the deceased before his death. Learned counsel for the
informant has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14691 of 2025(5) dt.24-02-2026
4/5
Apex Court passed in the case of X Vs. State of Rajasthan
and another reported in 2024 INSC 909 to submit that 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
loath in entertaining the bail application of the accused as has
been held in para-14 of the said judgment. It is also pointed out
that the petitioner has as many as nine criminal antecedents,
besides the fact that one eye witness has also been examined
during the course of investigation in para-66 of the case diary,
who has attributed the allegations on this petitioner of opening
fire at the deceased and the postmortem report also
corroborates the factum of death on account of firearm injury.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances of the case and the rival contentions raised on
behalf of the parties, this Court does not deem it proper to
delve into the question/ground of illegal detention of the
petitioner in the year 2024 at this stage of consideration of bail
of the petitioner in the year 2026, as such ground being urged
earlier is neither apparent from the order of the learned
Sessions Judge nor has been pleaded in the entire bail petition
filed before this Court, especially in view of the fact that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14691 of 2025(5) dt.24-02-2026
5/5
trial is in progress and four out of eight charge-sheet witnesses
have already been examined. Thus, in the background of the
fact that there is specific allegation of opening fire, as stated by
the deceased telephonically to the informant, eye witness
account being available, confession of co-accused leading to
recovery of weapon, coupled with the fact that the petitioner
has nine criminal antecedents and the trial is progressing and
four witnesses have already been examined, at such an
advanced stage of trial, this Court does not deem it proper to
release the petitioner on bail on consideration of ground raised
on behalf of the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of
the petitioner stands rejected.
7. However, the learned Trial Court is directed to
expedite the trial and since only four witnesses remain to be
examined, the learned Trial Court would expedite the trial and
preferably conclude the same within a period of six months.
8. It goes without saying that any observations
made in the present order shall not affect the merits of the case
and shall not prejudice the petitioner in any manner.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
Trivedi/-
U T
Checking your session…