Patna High Court
Sintu Pathak @ Mithilesh PathakversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Bail may be granted provided the trial court first verifies that the charges have been formally framed; otherwise the bail order is ineffective.
Summary
The petitioner, Sintu Pathak, applied for bail in a criminal case involving offences under several sections of the B.N.S. and Section 27 of the Arms Act. He had previously sought regular bail, which was rejected, but the court allowed him to renew his bail application after the charges were framed. The petitioner had been in custody since May 9, 2025, and the trial court had not yet produced the charge‑framing order. The High Court directed that bail be granted upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs.25,000 with two sureties, subject to verification that the charges have indeed been framed. It further stipulated that if the trial court finds the charges unframed, the bail order would not take effect, and that bail could be cancelled if the petitioner attempts to delay the trial. The application was allowed, granting bail under the specified conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted when the charges against the petitioner have been formally framed under the specified statutes
- Whether the trial court must verify the framing of charges before releasing the petitioner on bail
- What conditions may be imposed on bail in a case involving offences under the B.N.S. and the Arms Act
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- charge framing
- Arms Act
- Bihar
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25251 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-115 Year-2025 Thana- BHAGWANPUR District- Kaimur
(Bhabua)
======================================================
Sintu Pathak @ Mithilesh Pathak S/o Ghanshyam Pathak Resident of Village-
Singhi, P.S.- Bhagwanpur, District- Kaimur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Priyanka Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Rajendra Nath Jha
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 13-05-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109, 352,
351(2), 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner had earlier moved this Court seeking regular bail by
filing Cr. Misc. No.62155 of 2025 and the same came to be
rejected by an order dated 23.12.2025 with liberty to the
petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is in custody since 09.05.2025 and has antecedent
of one case and the charges against the petitioner stands framed
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25251 of 2026(2) dt.13-05-2026
2/3
by order dated 06.02.2026 as pleaded at Para-9 of the regular
bail application.
5. Learned A.P.P. submits that no doubt the petitioner
was granted the liberty to renew his prayer for bail after framing
of charge and it has been pleaded also that charges against the
petitioner stands framed by order dated 06.02.2026, but then the
order framing charge has not been annexed.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
the petitioner, above-named, is directed to be released on bail on
his furnishing bail-bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees
Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of learned Court below where the case is
pending in connection with Bhagwanpur P. S. Case No. 115 of
2025.
7. The application stands allowed.
8. It is made clear that the learned trial Court before
releasing the petitioner on bail shall verify whether charges
against the petitioner has been framed or not and if it is found
that charges against the petitioner has not been framed in that
event the present order shall not be given effect to, but if it is
found that charges against the petitioner stands framed, in that
event, petitioner will be released forthwith.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25251 of 2026(2) dt.13-05-2026
3/3
9. It is further made clear that if the learned trial court
comes to a conclusion that petitioner after his release is trying
the delay the trial in any manner, the learned trial court shall be
at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner after
recording reasons.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.