Patna High Court
Firoj @ Md. FirojversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The court granted regular bail to the petitioner, holding that continued pre‑trial detention would be punitive and contrary to Article 21.
Summary
The petitioner, Firoj, sought regular bail in a case under Section 309(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, after being in judicial custody since 18 November 2024. His earlier bail application was rejected, but he argued that the trial was delayed, with only two of five charge‑sheeted witnesses examined, violating his Article 21 right to personal liberty. The State opposed the bail, citing the seriousness of the offence. The court considered the length of pre‑trial detention, the framing of charges, and the lack of progress in the trial, concluding that continued incarceration would be punitive and contrary to Article 21. Accordingly, the court granted bail on a bond of Rs. 15,000 with two sureties of the same amount.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner’s continued pre‑trial detention violates the right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
- Whether bail should be granted in a case under Section 309(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, given the nature of the offence and the delay in trial proceedings.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 309(4)
Subjects
- bail
- pre‑trial detention
- Article 21
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- criminal procedure
- right to liberty
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19537 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-234 Year-2024 Thana- DUMARIAGHAT District- East
Champaran
======================================================
Firoj @ Md. Firoj Son of Bhure Khan Resident of Village - Athsaini, P.S. -
Garh Mukteshwar, District - Harpur at Uttar Pradesh.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anant Kumar 1, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
2 03-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP
for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with S.T.
No. 309 of 2025, arising out of 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
29.04.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 8241 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.19537 of 2026(2) dt.03-04-2026
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 two criminal
antecedents. 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.
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.
Similarly situated co-accused has been enlarged on regular bail
on second attempt vide order dated 18.03.2026, passed in Cr.
Misc. No. 18240 of 2026.
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 being framed and taking into account the fact that
continued detention of the petitioner would serve no purpose
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19537 of 2026(2) dt.03-04-2026
3/3
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
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Court
below/concerned Court in connection with S.T. No. 309 of
2025, arising out of Dumariaghat P.S. Case No. 234 of 2024.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Raj Kishore/-
U T
Checking your session…