Patna High Court
Raushan Kumar@ DavidversusThe 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
Raushan Kumar (David) was arrested in connection with a case under Sections 109 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Earlier attempts for anticipatory and regular bail were rejected, but the petitioner remained in custody since 18‑09‑2025 without any witness examination and with the trial yet to conclude. The petitioner’s counsel argued that continued pre‑trial detention violated Article 21 of the Constitution. The State opposed bail. Considering the lack of trial progress, the petitioner’s two criminal antecedents, and the principle that pre‑trial incarceration should not be punitive, the court granted bail with a cash bond and surety conditions, directing the petitioner to appear at every trial date.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail despite the seriousness of the offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Arms Act
- Whether continued pre‑trial detention violates the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents preclude the grant of bail
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109, 3(5)
Subjects
- bail
- pre‑trial detention
- Article 21
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Arms Act
- criminal antecedents
- surety
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35645 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-795 Year-2024 Thana- DIGHA District- Patna
======================================================
Raushan Kumar@ David Son of Sri Niranjan Rai Resident of village-
Panapur Diara, P.S.- Akilpur, District- Saran, At present resident of village-
Ramjichak Bataganj, Gandhi Gali, P.S.- Digha, District- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Amresh Kumar Sinha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
2 19-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP
for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Digha
P.S. Case No. 795 of 2024 instituted for the offence under
Sections 109 & 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and
Section 27 of the Arms Act. Earlier vide order dated 28.07.2025,
passed in Cr. Misc. No. 20661 of 2025, anticipatory bail of the
petitioner was rejected by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
Again vide order dated 03.02.2026, passed in Cr. Misc. No.
7969 of 2026, regular bail of the petitioner was rejected by this
Court, with liberty to renew his prayer for bail if the trial is not
concluded within a period of three months from the date of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35645 of 2026(2) dt.19-06-2026
2/3
receipt/production of a copy of this order.
3. 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 witness has been examined. It has been
submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in
custody since 18.09.2025, having two (2) criminal antecedents.
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.
4. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner.
5. 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35645 of 2026(2) dt.19-06-2026
3/3
petitioner.
6. Let the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing
bail bonds of Rs. 15,000/- (Fifteen Thousand) with two sureties
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Court
below/concerned Court in connection with Digha P.S. Case No.
795 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)
Raj Kishore/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.