Patna High Court
Sambhu Prasad Singh @ Shambhu Prasad SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail as continued detention would be punitive and contrary to Article 21.
Summary
The petitioner, Sambhu Prasad Singh, was arrested in August 2022 in connection with a 2015 case alleging offences under Sections 420 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code. He applied for regular bail for the third time after two earlier applications were rejected by the Patna High Court. The petitioner argued that his continued pre‑trial detention violated his fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The State and the Bihar State Food Corporation opposed the bail, contending the seriousness of the offences. Considering the lengthy custody, the incomplete trial (only six of nine witnesses examined), and the principle that pre‑trial detention should not be punitive, the Court granted bail with specified conditions. The bail order required a bond of Rs.15,000 with two sureties and imposed conditions on appearance, non‑tampering with evidence, and territorial restrictions.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite the pending charges under Sections 420 and 409 IPC.
- Whether continued pre‑trial detention violates the petitioner’s right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 21
- Indian Penal Code — s. 409, 420
Subjects
- bail
- pre‑trial detention
- Article 21
- IPC 420
- IPC 409
- criminal procedure
- right to liberty
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16592 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-57 Year-2015 Thana- CHAINPUR District- Kaimur (Bhabua)
======================================================
Sambhu Prasad Singh @ Shambhu Prasad Singh Son of Late Bhagwan Singh
Resident of village Simra, P.S.- Parsa Bazar, District - Kaimur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The District Manager, SFC, Kaimur (Bhabua) Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Mishra
For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Gulnar Begum
For the BSFC : Mr. Niraj Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
3 10-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP
for the State and learned counsel for the BSFC.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Chainpur P.S. Case No. 57 of 2015, instituted for the offences
under Sections 420 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. This is the third attempt of the petitioner for bail.
The petitioner has renewed his prayer for grant of regular bail
which was rejected twice by this Court vide order dated
15.03.2024 and 16.05.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 7834 of
2023 and in Cr. Misc. No. 16308 of 2025 respectively.
4. In compliance of the order dated 11.03.2026, a
report dated 13.03.2026 with regard to the present stage of trial
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16592 of 2026(3) dt.10-04-2026
2/4
has been received. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it
appears that charge has been framed against the petitioner on
14.03.2023 and out of nine witnesses, only six witnesses have
been examined in this case.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 18.08.2022
without any rhymes or reason and has got one criminal
antecedent in which he is on bail. Learned counsel for the
petitioner next submits that vide order dated 16.05.2025 passed
in Cr. Misc. No. 16308 of 2025, the petitioner was granted
liberty to renew his prayer for grant of bail before the learned
Trial Court if the trial is not concluded within a period of five
months. It is submitted that 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 reiterated by Hon’ble Apex
Court in plethora of Judgments.
6. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for
the BSFC have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail
to the petitioner.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of
the case, the period of custody undergone by the petitioner and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16592 of 2026(3) dt.10-04-2026
3/4
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.
8. Let the petitioner 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 Chainpur P.S. Case
No. 57 of 2015, subject to the following conditions:
(I) One of the bailors shall be own/close member of
the family of the petitioner.
(II) The petitioner shall appear on each and every date
fixed at the trial and shall not remain absent on two consecutive
dates without sufficient cause.
(III) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence
or the witnesses during the trial.
(IV) Petitioner shall not commit offence of similar
nature in future.
(V) The petitioner shall not leave the territorial
jurisdiction of the learned Court below without taking prior
permission of the Court concerned.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16592 of 2026(3) dt.10-04-2026
4/4
If any of the above conditions are violated, the Trial
Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the
petitioner.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Rajorshi/-
U T
Checking your session…