Patna High Court
Suresh BaithaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The Court granted bail to the petitioner with the condition of physical presence at every court date and a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties.
Summary
The petitioner, Suresh Baitha, was charged in Vijaypur P.S. Case No. 124 of 2017 for offences under Sections 272, 273, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 30(a), 37(b) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. His earlier bail was cancelled on the ground that he had jumped bail, and he contended that subsequent court processes were not served to him and that his absence had not hampered court proceedings. The State opposed the bail application, arguing that the cancellation was justified. After hearing both sides, the Court held that bail could be granted provided the petitioner remains physically present on every date fixed by the trial court. Accordingly, the petitioner was ordered to furnish a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties of the same amount, subject to the conditions imposed.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner despite the earlier cancellation of his bail on the ground of jumping bail
- Whether the alleged non‑service of court processes and the claim of no hindrance to court work justify granting bail
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 272, 273, 420
Subjects
- bail
- IPC
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- jumping bail
- court procedure
- criminal law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20766 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-124 Year-2017 Thana- VIJAYEPUR District- Gopalganj
======================================================
Suresh Baitha Son of Late Bijai Baitha Resident of Village - Bhanpur, P.S. -
Vijaypur, Dist. - Gopalganj.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amish Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Indu Kumari Srivastava, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 02-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with
Vijaypur P.S. Case No. 124 of 2017 registered for the offence
punishable under Sections 272, 273, 420 of the Indian Penal Code
and Sections 30(a), 37(b) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
in this case, the petitioner was on bail and his bail bond was
cancelled as he had jumped the privilege of bail. He also submits
that the case was fixed for appearance and he could not appear
and the processes issued by the court, were not served on him. He
further submits that due to his absence, no work of the court has
been hampered, as the case was pending for appearance. It is a
simple case of misuse of bail.
4. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20766 of 2026(2) dt.02-04-2026
2/2
for the State.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is
inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail with the condition that
the petitioner shall remain physically present on each and
every date fixed by the learned trial court till the conclusion of
the trial. The above named petitioner is directed to be enlarged
on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand
only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction
of the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-IV-cum-
Exclusive Special Excise Court-II, Gopalganj in connection with
Vijaypur P.S. Case No. 124 of 2017.
6. Before parting, it is very disheartening to note that
even the officers in the cadre of A.D.J. are not able to understand
their jurisdiction and the orders are passed in a mechanical
manner without application of mind, if the case was fixed for
appearance, other accused persons were also not present, so how
has the work of the court been hampered if the present petitioner
is not present, he should introspect.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Sudhanshu/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.