Patna High Court
MANOJ SHARMA @ SOURABHversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The court held that there was no ground to review its earlier order and therefore denied bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Manoj Sharma, sought regular bail in a case registered under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code for alleged robbery of Rs. 10 lakh. He had been in custody since August 25, 2021 and argued that the trial was unduly delayed, warranting bail. The State opposed the bail, asserting that sufficient material linked the petitioner to the crime and that the investigation was proceeding, including witness examination. The High Court, recalling its earlier order dismissing the bail application, found no ground to revisit that decision. Consequently, the court rejected the second bail application and directed the district courts to expedite the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 392 IPC given prolonged pre‑trial detention and alleged trial delay
- Whether the earlier order denying bail can be reviewed in the present application
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 392
Subjects
- bail
- robbery
- Section 392 IPC
- pre‑trial detention
- trial delay
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.41991 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-77 Year-2020 Thana- CHHATAUNI District- East Champaran
======================================================
Manoj Sharma @ Sourabh S/O Chhavilal Sharma R/O Vill.- Siktaul Maniram
,P.S.- Chiluatal, Dist.- Gorakhpur, U.P.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramendra Kumar Bharti
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
5 11-03-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned APP for the State.
2. This is the 2nd attempt of the petitioner seeking bail
in connection with Chhatauni P.S. Case No. 77 of 2020
registered for the offence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal
Code.
3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was
rejected on 18.01.2024 in Cr. Misc. No. 74418 of 2023 which
reads as follows:-
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in
connection with Chhatauni P.S. Case No. 77 of 2020
registered for the offence under Section 392 of the
Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the prosecution case, unknown
criminals looted Rs. 10 Lacs from the informant and his
driver.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41991 of 2025(5) dt.11-03-2026
2/3
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner is in custody since
25.08.2021. He is quite innocent and has not committed
any offence.
5. During investigation, sufficient materials
have come to connect the petitioner with the alleged
crime. Petitioner is a resident of Uttar Pradesh and it
appears that he is committing crimes in the area of East
Champaran and WestChamparan and the petitioner is
accused in 12 more cases.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances
of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the
petitioner. This application for regular bail is dismissed.
7. The District Judge, East Champaran and
District Judge, West Champaran are directed to conclude
the trial of the cases registered against the petitioner at
the earliest.
8. Let a copy of this order be communicated
to the District Judge, East Champaran and District Judge,
West Champaran and Superintendent of Police, East
Champaran and Superintendent of Police, West
Champaran through FAX for its compliance forthwith.
4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the petitioner is in custody since 25.08.2021
and the trial is being delayed; therefore, the petitioner deserves
to be granted bail.
5. Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, the learned APP for the
State has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner and
has filed a counter affidavit.
6. Upon perusal of the counter affidavit, it appears
that the State is taking all necessary steps to ensure the
examination of witnesses during the course of the trial.
7. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this Court
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41991 of 2025(5) dt.11-03-2026
3/3
finds no ground to review its earlier order. Accordingly, the
present application for grant of regular bail stands rejected.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Shishir/-
U T
Checking your session…