Patna High Court
Dhamu SahversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The High Court denied the bail petition, finding no new ground to alter its earlier decision.
Summary
The petitioner, Dhamu Sah, was arrested in February 2025 and charged under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the POCSO Act, the Juvenile Justice Act, the Income Tax Act and the Bounded Labour System Act. He applied for regular bail for the second time after an earlier bail application was rejected in August 2025. The trial court had framed charges and examined only two of the nineteen prosecution witnesses, with the trial expected to finish in about nine months. The petitioner argued that he had been in judicial custody without justification and had no prior criminal record. The State opposed bail, and the High Court found no new ground to revisit the earlier decision, noting that the trial was still pending, and consequently rejected the bail petition while directing the lower court to expedite the trial, allowing a fresh bail application after six months.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate basis for granting or refusing bail when the trial is ongoing and only a few prosecution witnesses have been examined?
- Does the petitioner have any new ground that warrants a reconsideration of the earlier bail denial?
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 143(1), 145, 3(5), 64, 65(1), 98
- Bounded Labour System Act — s. 16, 17, 18
- Income Tax Act — s. 3, 4, 5, 6
- Juvenile Justice (JJ) Act — s. 75, 79
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 12, 6, 8
Subjects
- bail
- judicial custody
- trial delay
- multiple offences
- high court
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6819 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-8 Year-2025 Thana- MAHILA P.S District- West Champaran
======================================================
Dhamu Sah Son of Mithan Sah @ Mithun Sah R/o Village - Bishunpura,
Ward 02, Post - Kathaiya, P.S. - Jagdishpur, District - West Champaran, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. X W/o Girish Prasad The Officer-in-charge, Bettiah Mahila P.S., P.S. -
Bettiah Town, Dist. - West Champaran, Bihar.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Choubey Jawahar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
6 15-05-2026 Heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Choubey Jawahar, learned APP for the State.
2. Mr. Choubey Jawahar, learned APP for the State
submits that he has already informed the Opposite Party No. 2
regarding filing of the present case.
3. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Bettiah
Mahila P.S. Case No. 08 of 2025, instituted for the offences
under Sections 64, 65(1), 143(1), 145, 98, 3(5) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Sections 6, 8, 12 of POCSO
Act, Sections 75, 79 of J.J. Act, Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 of I.T. Act,
Sections 16, 17 and 18 of the Bounded Labour System Act.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6819 of 2026(6) dt.15-05-2026
2/3
4. 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
13.08.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 30093 of 2025 taking into
consideration the nature of accussation, gravity of the offence
and involvement of the petitioner in the offence.
5. In compliance of the order dated 30.01.2026, a
report dated 12.02.2026 with regard to the present stage of trial
has been received. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it
appears that charge has been framed against the petitioner and
out of nineteen prosecution witnesses, only two witnesses have
been examined in this case. It is further reported that the trial is
likely to be concluded within a period of nine months.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 23.02.2025
without any rhymes or reason and has got no criminal
antecedent.
7. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed
the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner.
8. There is no new ground to consider the bail petition
of the petitioner. From the aforesaid report, it appears that the
trial is going on.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6819 of 2026(6) dt.15-05-2026
3/3
9. In view of the above, the prayer for bail of the
petitioner is again rejected with a direction to the court below to
expedite the trial and conclude the same. If the trial is not
concluded within the period of six months, the petitioner will be
at liberty to renew his prayer before the court below.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Rajorshi/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.