Patna High Court
DHARMENDRA RAVIDAS @ DHARO @ D.J. @ DHARMENDRA KUMARversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The court held that bail must be granted as continued detention would be punitive and infringe Article 21.
Summary
The petitioners, Dharmendra Ravidas and Mantu Ravidas, were arrested in connection with a case registered on 03-10-2024 under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Arms Act and the IT Act. Their earlier application for regular bail was rejected, with the court directing a renewal after six months. On the second application, counsel argued that no charge had been framed, no witness examined, and the petitioners had been in custody for over nine months without criminal antecedents, violating their Article 21 right to liberty. The State opposed 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 a cash bond and surety conditions, with a provision for cancellation on repeated non‑appearance.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to bail despite the stage of investigation and lack of charge framing under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and constitutional guarantee of personal liberty
- Whether continued pre‑trial detention amounts to a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-B)a, 26, 35
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 111(2)(b), 316(2), 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 339, 340(2), 341(1), 342(1), 3(5), 61(2)
- Information Technology Act — s. 66(c), 66(D)
Subjects
- bail
- pre‑trial detention
- Article 21
- personal liberty
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Arms Act
- IT Act
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4189 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-379 Year-2024 Thana- GRIYAK District- Nalanda
======================================================
1. Dharmendra Ravidas @ Dharo @ D.J. @ Dharmendra KUMAR Son of
Kapil Ravidas Resident of Village - Rasalpur, Police Station - Katrisarai in
the district of Nalanda.
2. Mantu Ravidas @ Mantu Kumar Son of Ramashray Ravidas Resident of
Village - Rasalpur, Police Station - Katrisarai in the district of Nalanda.
... ... petitioners/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the petitioners/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Surendra Prasad Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
2 28-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP
for the State.
2. The petitioners seek bail in connection with Giriak
P.S. Case No. 379 of 2024 instituted for the offence under
Sections 342(1), 316(2), 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 339,
340(2), 341(1), 3(5), 61(2) & 111(2)(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023, Sections 25(1-B)a, 26 & 35 of the Arms Act and
Sections 66(c) & 66(D) of the I.T. Act. Earlier vide order dated
15-04-2025, passed in Cr. Misc. No. 8179 of 2025, regular bail
of the petitioners was rejected by this Court with a liberty to
renew the prayer after six months if the trial is not concluded.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4189 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026
2/3
present one is the second attempt for grant of regular bail to the
petitioners. It is mainly submitted that charge in this case is even
not framed and till date, no witness has been examined. It has
been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners
are in custody since 03-10-2024, having no criminal antecedent.
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
petitioners 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 petitioners.
5. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case, period of custody of the petitioners and taking into
account the fact that continued detention of the petitioners
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 petitioners.
6. Let the petitioners be released on bail on furnishing
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4189 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026
3/3
bail bonds of Rs. 15,000/- (Fifteen Thousand) each with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Court
below/concerned Court in connection with Giriak P.S. Case No.
379 of 2024, subject to the following conditions:
(I) One of the bailors shall be own/close member of the
family of the petitioners.
(II) The petitioners 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 petitioners.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Raj Kishore/-
U T
Checking your session…