Patna High Court
Jitendra Nut @ Jittendra Nut @ Jatha Nut @ Jitendra NatversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
Bail was not granted; the application was dismissed.
Summary
The petitioner, Jitendra Nut, was charged under Sections 396, 397 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code for dacoity and dacoity with murder. He applied for bail for the third time after two earlier applications were rejected. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the trial was being delayed and that this justified bail. The Court noted that the trial had already commenced, with charges framed and a witness examined, and emphasized the gravity of the offences. Consequently, the Court dismissed the bail application and directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings on a day‑to‑day basis.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to an accused of dacoity with murder on the ground of trial delay
- Whether the commencement of trial and seriousness of the offences preclude bail
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 396, 397, 412
Subjects
- bail
- trial delay
- dacoity
- murder
- Indian Penal Code
- high court
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.78900 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-102 Year-2016 Thana- SONEPUR District- Saran
======================================================
Jitendra Nut @ Jittendra Nut @ Jatha Nut @ Jitendra Nat S/o Late Arvind
Nut @ Arbind Nut R/o vill - Pakahah, Sonepur, P.S.- Marhaura, Distt.- Saran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms.Kanchan Kumari, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Narendra Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 11-02-2026 Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. This is the third attempt on behalf of the petitioner
for grant of bail in connection with Sonepur P.S. Case No. 102
of 2016 registered for the offence punishable under Sections
396, 397 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Earlier the bail applications of the petitioner were
rejected twice vide orders dated 27.02.2024 and 24.01.2025
passed in Cr. Misc. Nos. 75016 of 2023 and 68493 of 2024
respectively.
4. The following order was passed on 24.01.2025 in
Cr. Misc. No. 68493 of 2024, which reads as under:
“Heard Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel
for the petitioner and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay,
learned APP for the State.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78900 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
2/3
2. Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, learned APP
has filed counter affidavit.
3. The following order was passed on
05.10.2024:-
“Heard learned counsel for
the parties.
2. This is the 2nd attempt of
the petitioner. Earlier the bail
application of the petitioner was
rejected vide order dated 27.02.2024
passed in Cr. Miscellaneous No. 75016
of 2023.
3. It has been submitted by
learned counsel for the petitioner that
though the charges has been framed in
the month of January, 2024, but no
witnesses have been examined by the
prosecution.
4. The Superintendent of
Police, Saran will explain as to why the
prosecution witnesses are not being
produced.
5. List this case after six
weeks.
6. It is expected that before
submitting a report, the prosecution will
start producing the witnesses.
7. Let a copy of this order be
communicated to the Superintendent of
Police, Saran through FAX for forthwith
compliance.
8. Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay
will assist the Court. A copy of the brief
be handed over to learned APP by
Monday peremptory.”
4. The only contention of learned
counsel for the petitioner is that the trial is being
delayed and therefore, the petitioner should be
released on bail meaning thereby that an accused
who committed dacoity with murder should be
released on bail on the ground that trial is being
delayed.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78900 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
3/3
5. The trial judge, ADJ-VIII, Chapra,
Saran is directed to start the trial and hold the
trial on day to day basis and file a compliance
report after six months.
6. No ground of review of the bail
application is made out, this application is
dismissed.”
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
charges have been framed in the trial and one witness has been
examined.
6. Considering the gravity of the offence and the fact
that the trial has started, I am not inclined to review my earlier
order.
7. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.
8. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
P. Kumar
U T
Checking your session…