Patna High Court
Veer Bahadur SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The court held that continued pre‑trial detention of the petitioner violates Article 21 and thus bail must be granted subject to prescribed conditions.
Summary
Veer Bahadur Singh, arrested in September 2024, is charged under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. He applied for regular bail after a prior bail application was rejected. Counsel argued that his continued pre‑trial detention violates Article 21 of the Constitution, especially since only one of six charge‑sheeted witnesses has been examined. The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the offences. The court found that the prolonged detention serves no purpose other than punitive pre‑trial incarceration and is antithetical to the spirit of Article 21, and therefore granted bail with a cash bond and surety conditions, requiring his appearance at every trial date.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite the gravity of the offences charged under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
- Whether continued pre‑trial detention violates the fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution
- Whether bail can be granted subject to conditions of bond and surety
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109, 115(2), 118, 126(2), 324(4), 324(5), 326(f), 326(g), 3(5), 351(2), 352
Subjects
- bail
- pre‑trial detention
- Article 21
- fundamental rights
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- criminal procedure
- judicial custody
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17750 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-339 Year-2024 Thana- JANDAHA District- Vaishali
======================================================
Veer Bahadur Singh S/o Late Mukundchand Singh (wrongly nameed as FIR
as Late Baidya Nath Singh), R/o Vill- Singeyahi, P.S.- Jandaha, Distt- Vaishali
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Purushottam Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Brajendra Nath Pandey, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
2 18-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Jandaha P.S. Case No. 339 of 2024, instituted for the offences
under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118, 109, 326(f), 326(g), 324(4),
324(5), 352, 351(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. This is the second attempt of the petitioner for bail.
The petitioner has renewed his prayer for grant of regular bail
which was earlier rejected by this Court vide order dated
09.07.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 28179 of 2025 taking into
consideration the nature and gravity of the offence.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 27.09.2024
without any rhymes or reason and has got two criminal
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17750 of 2026(2) dt.18-03-2026
2/3
antecedents in which he is on bail. It is also submitted that
earlier, the petitioner was granted liberty to renew his prayer for
bail before the learned Court below if the trial is not concluded
within a period of six months, but the trial has not been
completed and out of six charge-sheeted witnesses, only one
witness has been examined in this case. Learned counsel for the
petitioner next submits 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 reiterated by Hon’ble Apex
Court in plethora of Judgments.
5. Learned APP 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, the period of custody undergone by 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 furnishing
bail bonds of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) with two
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17750 of 2026(2) dt.18-03-2026
3/3
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Court
below/concerned Court in connection with Jandaha P.S. Case
No. 339 of 2024, 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. In case of default in such appearance on two
consecutive dates, the Trial Court will have liberty to cancel the
bail bonds of the petitioner.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Rajorshi/-
U T
Checking your session…