Patna High Court
Sumit KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The court granted bail, holding that continued pre‑trial detention would be punitive and violate Article 21.
Summary
The petitioner, Sumit Kumar, was arrested in connection with a vigilance case and charged under Sections 316(5) and 308(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. An earlier application for regular bail was rejected, with the court allowing a fresh application after five months. The petitioner argued that he had been in custody since 12 June 2025, no witnesses had been examined, and continued detention violated his fundamental right to liberty under Article 21. The State opposed the bail. The court held that continued pre‑trial detention would be punitive and contrary to the spirit of Article 21, and therefore granted bail subject to monetary and personal surety conditions and compliance with procedural directives.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite the seriousness of the offences under Sections 316(5) and 308(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
- Whether continued pre‑trial detention infringes the petitioner’s right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution
- Whether the conditions imposed for bail are sufficient to safeguard the trial process
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 308(2), 316(5)
Subjects
- bail
- pre‑trial detention
- Article 21
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Section 316
- Section 308
- vigilance case
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23905 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-53 Year-2025 Thana- Purbasarai District- Munger
======================================================
Sumit Kumar Son of Narendra Prasad Singh R/O Village- Prabodhi Narendra,
P.S.- Sarai, Distt.- Vaishali
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Patna
2. The Vigilance Department, State of Bihar, Patna Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Jagjit Roshan, Advocate
Mr.Anjani Kumar, Advocate
Mr.Prashant Raj, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Anil Kumar Singh No. 1, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
2 17-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Vigilance Case No. 01 of 2026/ Special Vigilance Case No. 01
of 2026, arising out of Purabsarai P.S. Case No. 53 of 2025,
instituted for the offence under Sections 316(5) and 308(2) of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. Earlier, vide order dated 25.09.2025 passed in
Cr. Misc. No. 47170 of 2025, regular bail of the petitioner was
rejected by this Court considering the nature of accusation and
the gravity of the offence, with a liberty to renew the prayer
after five months if the trial is not concluded.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23905 of 2026(2) dt.17-04-2026
2/3
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the present one is the second attempt for grant of regular bail to
the petitioner. It is mainly submitted that charge in this case is
framed and till date, no witnesses have been examined. It has
been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is
in custody since 12.06.2025. Learned counsel further submits
that there is no likelihood of the trial being concluded in the
near future. Learned counsel goes on to submit 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
is reiterated by Hon’ble Apex Court in plethora of judgments.
5. Learned A.P.P. 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, period of custody of 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23905 of 2026(2) dt.17-04-2026
3/3
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 Vigilance Case
No. 01 of 2026/ Special Vigilance Case No. 01 of 2026, arising
out of Purabsarai P.S. Case No. 53 of 2025, subject to the
following conditions:
(I) One of the bailors shall be the petitioner’s own or
close member.
(II) The petitioner shall appear on each and every date
fixed during the trial and shall not remain absent on two
consecutive dates without sufficient cause.
(III) The petitioner shall not tamper with the
prosecution evidence or influence/intimidate any witness during
the course of trial.
In case of violation of any of the aforesaid conditions,
the Trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the
petitioner.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
manish/-
U T
Checking your session…