Patna High Court
Sonu Kumar @ Sonu Kumar SahversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail as continued pre‑trial detention would be punitive and contrary to Article 21.
Summary
Sonu Kumar was arrested in connection with a case under Section 309(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and has been in judicial custody since 18 November 2024. He filed a second bail application after an earlier denial, arguing that the trial is delayed, only two of five charge‑sheeted witnesses have been examined, and his continued detention violates Article 21 of the Constitution. The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the offence. The High Court considered the length of pre‑trial detention, the pending trial, and the punitive nature of continued incarceration, and concluded that it contravenes the spirit of Article 21. Accordingly, the Court granted regular bail on a bond of Rs. 15,000 with two sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite the seriousness of the offence under Section 309(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
- Whether continued pre‑trial detention violates the fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 309(4)
Subjects
- bail
- pre‑trial detention
- Article 21
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- criminal procedure
- attempted suicide
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18240 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-234 Year-2024 Thana- DUMARIAGHAT District- East
Champaran
======================================================
Sonu Kumar @ Sonu Kumar Sah S/O Om Prakash Sah Resident of Village-
Raniganj, ward No. 7, Police Station- Chakiya, Dist.- East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jagdhar Prasad, 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
Dumariaghat P.S. Case No. 234 of 2024, instituted for the
offences under Section 309(4) 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
23.06.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 6464 of 2025 taking into
consideration the nature and gravity of the offence as also there
being recovery of looted goods from the possession of the
accused persons including the petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18240 of 2026(2) dt.18-03-2026
2/3
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 18.11.2024
without any rhymes or reason and has got one criminal
antecedent in which he is on bail. It is also submitted that
earlier, liberty was granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer
for bail before the Trial Court if the trial is not concluded within
a period of six months, but the trial is in progress and out of five
charge-sheeted witnesses, only two witnesses have been
examined in this case. It is next submitted that charge has been
framed against the petitioner on 08.04.2025. 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 as
also charge has been framed against the petitioner and taking
into account the fact that continued detention of the petitioner
would serve no purpose other than punitive pretrial
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18240 of 2026(2) dt.18-03-2026
3/3
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
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Court
below/concerned Court in connection with Dumariaghat P.S.
Case No. 234 of 2024.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Rajorshi/-
U T
Checking your session…