Patna High Court
Sushil Kumar YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail as continued detention would be punitive and contrary to the spirit of Article 21.
Summary
The petitioner, Sushil Kumar Yadav, was arrested in May 2025 in connection with a case under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and has been in judicial custody since then. He filed a second bail application after an earlier bail plea was rejected, arguing that his prolonged pre‑trial detention violates his fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21, especially since only five of the fifteen witnesses have been examined. The State opposed the bail, contending the seriousness of the offences. The Court examined the delay, the lack of trial progress, and the punitive nature of continued detention, concluding that such incarceration serves no purpose and contravenes Article 21. Consequently, the Court granted regular bail on the condition of a Rs. 15,000 bond with two sureties and compliance with attendance requirements.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner’s continued pre‑trial detention violates Article 21 of the Constitution due to trial delay.
- Whether bail can be granted despite the seriousness of the offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
- Whether the conditions imposed for bail are appropriate and sufficient.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103, 109, 115(2), 118, 126(2), 303(2), 324(4), 329(4), 3(5), 351(2), 352, 75
Subjects
- bail
- pre‑trial detention
- Article 21
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- criminal procedure
- right to liberty
- trial delay
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23133 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-104 Year-2024 Thana- BHEJA District- Madhubani
======================================================
Sushil Kumar Yadav S/O Tirpit Narayan Yadav @ Tirpeet Narayan Yadav @
Tripti Narayan Yadav R/O Village- Darah Nawtoliya, P.S.- Bheja, District-
Madhubani.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Bharti, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Tapeshwar Sharma, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Gagandeo Yadav, Advocate
Mr. Udeshya Kumar Yadav, Advocate
Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
2 03-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP
for the State and learned counsel for the informant.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Bheja
P.S. Case No. 104 of 2024, instituted for the offences under
Sections 329(4), 126(2), 115(2), 118, 109, 75, 303(2), 324(4),
352, 351(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and later
on added Section 103 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
07.08.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 50898 of 2025 taking into
consideration the nature and gravity of the offence.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23133 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 07.05.2025
without any rhymes or reason and has got no criminal
antecedent. It is submitted that earlier regular bail of the
petitioner was dismissed by this Court vide order dated
07.08.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 50898 of 2025 with an
observation that the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his
prayer before the learned Court below if the trial is not
concluded within a period of six months. It is next submitted
that out of fifteen witnesses, only five witnesses have been
examined in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
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 and learned counsel for
the informant have 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23133 of 2026(2) dt.03-04-2026
3/3
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
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Court
below/concerned Court in connection with Bheja P.S. Case No.
104 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…