Patna High Court
Rajeev Kumar @ Rajeev Kumar Srivastawa @ Rajiv KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The Court granted bail to the petitioner subject to monetary and personal surety conditions.
Summary
Petitioner Rajeev Kumar, charged under several IPC sections (272, 273, 328, 308, 304, 120B) and the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, had been in judicial custody since 12 August 2025 after a prior bail application was rejected. He argued that his continued pre‑trial detention violated his fundamental right to liberty under Article 21, especially since only three of thirty‑nine witnesses had been examined and a co‑accused had already been granted bail. The State opposed the bail on the ground of the seriousness of the offences. The Court, noting the prolonged detention, the lack of trial progress, and the punitive nature of continued custody, decided that bail was appropriate. Accordingly, the Court granted regular bail on a bond of Rs. 15,000 with two sureties, imposing conditions that one bailor be a close family member and that the petitioner appear at every trial date, with cancellation possible after two consecutive defaults.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite the seriousness of the offences alleged under the IPC and the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
- Whether continued pre‑trial detention infringes the petitioner’s right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
- Whether the circumstances of the case, including the limited examination of witnesses and the bail granted to a co‑accused, justify granting bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act — s. 30(a), 33, 34
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 272, 273, 304, 308, 328
Subjects
- bail
- pre‑trial detention
- Article 21
- IPC offences
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- fundamental rights
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27666 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-583 Year-2022 Thana- MASHRAK District- Saran
======================================================
Rajeev Kumar @ Rajeev Kumar Srivastawa @ Rajiv Kumar S/o Ashok
Kumar Srivastava R/o vill - Swastik Amarawati, P.s.- Ramnagar, Distt.-
Varanashi, U.P.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Chandra Mohan Jha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Meena Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
2 01-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Mashrakh P.S. Case No. 583 of 2022, instituted for the offences
under Sections 272, 273, 328, 308, 304, 120B of the Indian
Penal Code, read with Sections 30(a), 33 and 34 of the Bihar
Prohibition and Excise Act.
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
11.09.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 65644 of 2025 taking into
consideration the nature of allegation and gravity of the offence.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27666 of 2026(2) dt.01-05-2026
2/3
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 12.08.2025
without any rhymes or reason and has got three criminal
antecedents. It is submitted that out of thirty-nine witnesses,
only three witnesses have been examined in this case. It is
further submitted that other co-accused has been granted regular
bail by this Court vide order dated 03.04.2026 passed in Cr.
Misc. No. 20983 of 2026. 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.
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 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.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27666 of 2026(2) dt.01-05-2026
3/3
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 Mashrakh P.S. Case
No. 583 of 2022, 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
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.