Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Babita DeviversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
DISPOSED

Holding

The petition for regular bail was dismissed because the seriousness of the offences and the material on record outweigh the argument of elapsed time.

Summary

Babita Devi was arrested in connection with offences under Sections 103(1), 238 and 3(5) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023. She had previously applied for regular bail, which was rejected on 17-01-2025 due to the serious nature of the charges. In a fresh bail petition she relied only on the passage of time, claiming she had been in custody for over a year and that no prosecution witness had yet been examined. The High Court, noting the gravity of the alleged offences and the material on record, declined to grant bail, stating that the mere lapse of time was insufficient. The Court directed the trial court to complete the trial within a year and ordered the Superintendent of Police to ensure the appearance of prosecution witnesses, allowing the petitioner to file a fresh bail application if the trial is not concluded within that period.

Issues considered

  • Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail solely on the ground of the passage of time since the earlier bail rejection.
  • Whether the seriousness of the offences under the B.N.S. 2023 warrants denial of bail despite the petitioner’s prolonged pre‑trial detention.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • pre‑trial detention
  • serious offence
  • expedited trial
  • witness attendance
  • Bihar Narcotic Substances Act

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                               CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8448 of 2026
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-333 Year-2024 Thana- NOORSARAI District- Nalanda
                 ======================================================
                 Babita Devi, Wife of Tuntun Ram Resident of Village- Dharampur, P.S.- Noor
                 Sarai, District- Nalanda

                                                                                  ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s    :        Mr. Saubhagya Suman, Advocate.
                 For the State           :        Mr. Nagendra Prasad, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   25-02-2026                     Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                                 2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Noor

                   Sarai P.S. Case No. 333 of 2024 dated 24.07.2024 registered for

                   the offences punishable under Sections, 103(1), 238 and 3(5) of

                   B.N.S. 2023.

                                 3. The previous petition of the petitioner for regular

                   bail was already rejected by this Court vide order dated

                   17.01.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. 80693 of 2024 in view of serious

                   nature of offence and meterials on record. Hence, the present

                   petition has been filed praying for regular bail on no new

                   ground except the passage of time since 17.01.2025, the date of

                   rejection of the previous regular bail petition.

                                 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8448 of 2026(3) dt.25-02-2026
                                            2/3




          charge has been framed on 16.06.2025 and case is at the stage of

          prosecution evidence, but till date no prosecution witness has

          been examined.

                       5. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody

          for about one year and seven months i.e. since 24.07.2024.

                       6. It has also been stated in paragraph no. 3 of the bail

          petition that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

                       7. However, learned APP for the State vehemently

          opposes the prayer of the petitioner for bail.

                       9. Considering the serious nature of the offence and

          materials on record, I am not persuaded to enlarge the petitioner

          on bail.

                       10. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner

          stands rejected.

                       11. However, learned Trial Court is directed to

          expedite the trial and conclude it within next one year, failing

          which, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew her prayer for

          regular bail.

                       12. The Superintendent of Police, Nalanda at

          Biharsharif, is also directed to ensure that the witnesses in this

          case appear before learned court below for examination as per

          prosecution witnesses.
              Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8448 of 2026(3) dt.25-02-2026
                                                          3/3




                                     13. Let a copy of this order be sent to the

                        Superintendent of Police, Nalanda at Biharsharif as well as

                        learned trial court.




                                                                            (Jitendra Kumar, J)
S.Ali/-

U         T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.