Patna High Court
Parikshit Sharma @ Parikshit KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The court granted bail, holding that continued pre‑trial detention would serve no purpose and would contravene Article 21.
Summary
Parikshit Sharma was arrested in October 2024 and charged under Sections 103 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act. An earlier application for regular bail was rejected, but the petitioner filed a second bail petition arguing that no prosecution witnesses had been examined and that the trial was far from conclusion, making continued detention violative of Article 21. The court noted that the charge was framed on 7 February 2026 and that all nine prosecution witnesses were yet to be examined. Considering the prolonged pre‑trial incarceration and the lack of any substantive trial progress, the court held that continued detention would be punitive and contrary to the spirit of Article 21. Accordingly, the court granted bail on a bond of Rs. 15,000 with two sureties and imposed standard conditions regarding appearance, non‑tampering with evidence, and non‑intimidation of witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner’s continued pre‑trial detention violates the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
- Whether bail should be granted despite the seriousness of the offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Arms Act, given the stage of the trial.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103, 3(5)
- Constitution of India — s. Article 21
Subjects
- bail
- pre‑trial detention
- Article 21
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Arms Act
- criminal procedure
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17259 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-982 Year-2024 Thana- DANAPUR District- Patna
======================================================
Parikshit Sharma @ Parikshit Kumar S/O Sri Niwaran Sharma @ Sri Niwas
Sharma R/O Village- Dhanurua, P.S- Bikram, Distt.- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. S.N.P. Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. S.P. Singh, Advocate
For the informant : Mr. N.K. Kashyap, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Renu Kumari, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
3 08-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
S.T. No. 643 of 2025, arising out of Danapur P.S. Case No. 982
of 2024, instituted for the offence under Sections 103 and 3(5)
of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27 of the
Arms Act.
3. Earlier, vide order dated 31.07.2025 passed in
Cr. Misc. No. 26894 of 2025, regular bail of the petitioner was
rejected by this Court considering the nature of accusation and
the gravity of the offence, with a liberty to renew the prayer
after six months if the trial is not concluded.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17259 of 2026(3) dt.08-05-2026
2/4
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
framed and till date no prosecution witnesses has been
examined in this case. It has been submitted on behalf of the
petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 07.10.2024.
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
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. In compliance of the order dated 03.04.2026, a
report dated 16.04.2026 with regard to the present stage of trial
has been received. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it
appears that Charge has been framed against the petitioner on
07.02.2026 and this case is now running for the prosecution’s
evidence. It is further reported that out of nine witnesses, all
witnesses are yet to be examined. Summons have already been
issued to the witnesses.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17259 of 2026(3) dt.08-05-2026
3/4
7. 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.
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 S.T. No. 643
of 2025, arising out of Danapur P.S. Case No. 982 of 2024,
subject to the following conditions:
(I) One of the bailors shall be the petitioner’s own or
close member.
(II) The petitioner shall appear on each and every date
fixed during the trial and shall not remain absent on two
consecutive dates without sufficient cause.
(III) The petitioner shall not tamper with the
prosecution evidence or influence/intimidate any witness during
the course of trial.
In case of violation of any of the aforesaid conditions,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17259 of 2026(3) dt.08-05-2026
4/4
the Trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the
petitioner.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
manish/Sukriti
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.