Patna High Court
Munna Sah @ Munna KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The High Court denied bail to the petitioners, holding that the seriousness of the offences and the stage of trial preclude granting bail.
Summary
The petitioners, Munna Kumar and Dinanath Sah, were charged under multiple sections of the B.N.S. for assaulting individuals during a panchayat meeting. They applied for regular bail, arguing they have no prior criminal record and that three prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined. The State opposed bail, contending the petitioners were the principal assailants and citing a Supreme Court precedent that bail is rarely granted in serious offences once trial has commenced. The High Court rejected the bail applications, noting the seriousness of the offences under Section 103 of the B.N.S. and directing the trial court to complete the trial within three months via a calendar trial. The court allowed the petitioners to renew their bail plea after three months if the trial remains pending.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail should be granted to the accused in a serious assault case under the B.N.S. when the trial is underway and some witnesses are yet to be examined.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 103, 109, 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 127(2), 190, 191(2), 351(2), 352
Subjects
- bail
- regular bail
- assault
- criminal procedure
- B.N.S.
- trial expeditement
- calendar trial
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.85667 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-315 Year-2024 Thana- NAUTAN District- West Champaran
======================================================
Munna Sah @ Munna Kumar, Son of Ramji Sah, R/o - Budhwaliya, Ward no.
12, P.S - Nautan, District - West Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 86565 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-315 Year-2024 Thana- NAUTAN District- West Champaran
======================================================
Dinanath Sah, Son of Late Dharichhan Sah @ Late Dharikshan Sah @ Late
Gharikshan Sah, Resident of village - Budhwaliya, Ward No. - 12, Police
Station - Nautan, District - West Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 85667 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate
For the Informant : Mr. Ram Adya Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, APP
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 86565 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate
For the Informant : Mr. Ram Adya Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Md. Ataur Rahman, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 16-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners have prayed for regular bail in a
case registered for the offence punishable under Sections
191(2), 190, 126(2), 127(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109, 103, 352,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85667 of 2025(3) dt.16-01-2026
2/4
351(2) of B.N.S.
3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that a
panchyati was going between the parties. When the husband of
the informant tried to put forward his point, he was being
stopped and was abused. After twenty minutes of panchayati
Kailash Mukhiya gave order to assault, on this Dinanath Sah
assaulted with iron pipe on the back of the head of Suresh Sah.
It is further alleged that as the husband of the informant fell
down Munna Sah assaulted with lathi on the head. When the
family members came to rescue, they were also being assaulted.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted
that prayer for bail of these petitioners were rejected twice by
this Court vide order dated 11.02.2025 and 29.08.2025. Vide
order dated 11.02.2025, the petitioners were given liberty to
renew their prayer for bail after six months, if so advised. Vide
order dated 29.08.2025, the petitioners were given liberty to
renew their prayer for bail after three months if the trial is not
concluded. Petitioner are having no criminal antecedent and
they are languishing in custody since 31.08.2024 and
02.09.2024 respectively.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that from the report of the trial Court, it is clear that still three
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85667 of 2025(3) dt.16-01-2026
3/4
witnesses are to be examined.
6. The learned APP appearing for the State and
counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail.
Learned counsel for the informant has submitted that there is
direct allegation against both the petitioners. It has also been
submitted that trial is at its fag end.
7. Learned APP for the State has further submitted
that the petitioners are the main assailant in the present case. He
has also relied on a judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case
of X Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr passed in SLP(Criminal)
No. 13378 of 2024 wherein in para- ‘14’, Hon’ble Apex Court
has held which is being quoted hereunder:-
14. Ordinarily in serious offences like rape, murder,
dacoity, etc., once the trial commences and the prosecution
starts examining its witnesses, the Court be it the Trial
Court or the High Court should be loath in entertaining the
bail application of the accused.
8. Considering the fact that it is a case of Section 103
of B.N.S. and petitioners are the main assailant, this court is not
inclined to extend the privilege of bail to the petitioners.
Accordingly, the prayer for bail is rejected.
9. However, the learned trial Court is hereby directed
to expedite the trial and conclude the same within a period of
three months by conducting calendar trial of this case.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85667 of 2025(3) dt.16-01-2026
4/4
10. Petitioners are at liberty to renew their prayer for
bail after three months if the trial is not concluded.
11. Before parting, I would like to make clear that
calendar trial means fixing the date in advance and
informing the parties and Investigating Officer.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
lata/-
U T
Checking your session…