Patna High Court
Dinanath SahversusThe 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 their role as principal assailants preclude the grant of bail at this stage.
Summary
The petitioners, Munna Kumar and Dinanath Sah, were charged under multiple sections of the Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act for assaulting individuals during a panchayat dispute. They applied for regular bail, having been in custody since August‑September 2024, and argued they had no prior criminal record and that three witnesses were yet to be examined. The State and the informant opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the offences, especially under Section 103, and relied on a Supreme Court decision in X v. State of Rajasthan which cautioned against granting bail in serious cases once trial has commenced. The High Court, noting the gravity of the charges and the petitioners' role as principal assailants, rejected the bail applications but directed the trial court to complete the trial within three months via a calendar trial. The petitioners were permitted to renew their bail plea after three months if the trial remains pending.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to accused persons charged with serious offences under the Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act when the trial is underway.
- Whether the Supreme Court precedent in X v. State of Rajasthan applies to the present bail application.
- Whether the pending examination of witnesses and the petitioners' lack of prior record warrant bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 103, 109, 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 127(2), 190, 191(2), 351(2), 352
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- serious offences
- Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act
- assault
- trial expediting
- 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…