Patna High Court
Matish Kumar TatmaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail, subject to conditions, as continued pre‑trial detention would violate Article 21.
Summary
Matish Kumar Tatma was charged under Sections 137(2) and 96 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 for an offence arising from a police case. An earlier application for regular bail was rejected, but the petitioner filed a second bail application, contending that the charge sheet is still framed, no prosecution witness has been examined and the trial is far from conclusion, resulting in a prolonged pre‑trial detention since 21‑03‑2025. The petitioner argued that such detention infringes the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The State opposed the bail. The court, noting the lack of trial progress and the punitive nature of continued custody, granted bail subject to a cash bond of Rs.15,000, two sureties, and conditions regarding appearance, non‑tampering with evidence and non‑intimidation of witnesses. The order emphasizes that any violation of conditions may lead to cancellation of bail.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite the earlier denial and the pending trial.
- Whether continued pre‑trial detention violates Article 21 of the Constitution.
- Whether bail can be granted under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 with appropriate conditions.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 137(2), 183, 96
Subjects
- bail
- pre‑trial detention
- Article 21
- criminal procedure
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Section 137
- Section 96
- victim statement
- surety
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32982 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-39 Year-2025 Thana- Rangara District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
Matish Kumar Tatma S/o Sri Nandlal Tatma R/o Village - Kothiya, P.S -
Bardha, District - Araria
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ranjan Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Pranav Kumar, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
2 08-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Sessions Trial no. 922 of 2025, arising out of Rangra P.S Case
No. 39 of 2025, instituted for the offence under Sections 137(2)
and 96 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
3. Earlier, vide order dated23.09.2025, passed in
Cr. Misc. No. 48645 of 2025, regular bail of the petitioner was
rejected by this Court considering the statement of victim
recorded under section 183 of the BNSS, with a liberty to renew
the prayer after six months if the trial is not concluded.
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32982 of 2026(2) dt.08-05-2026
2/3
framed and till date, and no prosecution witness has been
examined. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that
the petitioner is in custody since 21.03.2025. 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
furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32982 of 2026(2) dt.08-05-2026
3/3
Court below/concerned Court in connection with Sessions Trial
no.922 of 2025, arising out of Rangra P.S Case No. 39 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/Sukriti
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.