Patna High Court
Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Kumar Yadav @ Rahul Kr. Yadav @ Rahul YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The Court granted bail to the petitioner, finding that continued pre‑trial detention would be punitive and contrary to Article 21.
Summary
The petitioner, Rahul Kumar Yadav, was arrested on charges under Section 310(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 25(1‑b) of the Arms Act, and has been in custody since 27 October 2024. An earlier application for regular bail was rejected, but the petitioner filed a second bail petition arguing that no prosecution witnesses have been examined and the trial is unlikely to conclude soon, violating his Article 21 right to liberty. The State opposed the bail. The Court considered the prolonged pre‑trial detention, the lack of trial progress, and the principle that detention should not be punitive before conviction. It held that continued incarceration would serve no purpose other than punitive pre‑trial incarceration, contrary to Article 21. Accordingly, the Court granted bail on a cash bond of Rs. 15,000 with two sureties and imposed conditions regarding family surety and appearance at trial dates.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner’s continued pre‑trial detention violates the right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
- Whether bail should be granted in a case involving offences under Section 310(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 25(1‑b) of the Arms Act, considering the stage of the trial.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1‑b)
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 310(2)
Subjects
- bail
- pre‑trial detention
- Article 21
- fundamental rights
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Arms Act
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7197 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-474 Year-2024 Thana- RANIGANJ District- Araria
======================================================
Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Kumar Yadav @ Rahul Kr. Yadav @ Rahul Yadav
S/o- Susheel Yadav @ Sushil Yadav R/v- Belsara Goth W.No-10, Ps-
Raniganj Dist- Araria
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Vijay Kishore Bharti, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar Singh, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
2 30-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Sessions Case No. 182 of 2025, arising out of Raniganj P.S.
Case No. 474 of 2024, instituted for the offence under Section
310(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 25(1-
b) 26 of the Arms Act.
3. Earlier vide order dated 18.06.2025 passed in Cr.
Misc. No. 16892 of 2025, regular bail of the petitioner was
rejected by this Court considering the material available in the
case diary as also the nature and gravity of offence, with a
liberty to renew the prayer after six months if the trial is not
concluded.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7197 of 2026(2) dt.30-01-2026
2/3
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 prosecution witnesses have been
examined. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that
the petitioner is in custody since 27.10.2024. 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7197 of 2026(2) dt.30-01-2026
3/3
furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
Court below/concerned Court in connection with Sessions Case
No. 182 of 2025, arising out of Raniganj P.S. Case No. 474 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)
manish/-
U T
Checking your session…