Patna High Court
Avinash @ Avinash Kumar @ Chiki @ Chanki @ Santosh SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The court granted bail to the petitioner, holding that continued pre‑trial detention would be punitive and contrary to Article 21.
Summary
The petitioner, Avinash Kumar, was charged under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act for a murder case (Danapur P.S. Case No. 1534 of 2023). Earlier, the High Court had denied regular bail, citing his active participation. The petitioner filed a second bail application, arguing that only four witnesses had been examined, the trial was far from conclusion, and his prolonged pre‑trial detention violated Article 21 of the Constitution. The State opposed the bail, but the court noted the parity with a co‑accused who had been granted bail and the punitive nature of continued detention. Considering these factors, the court granted bail subject to a cash bond of Rs. 15,000 with two sureties and conditions regarding appearance, non‑tampering with evidence, and non‑intimidation of witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite the seriousness of the offences under IPC 302/34 and Arms Act 27.
- Whether prolonged pre‑trial detention violates the petitioner’s right to liberty under Article 21.
- Whether parity with a co‑accused who was granted bail warrants granting bail to the petitioner.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act, 1959 — s. 27
- Constitution of India — s. Article 21
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 34
Subjects
- bail
- pre‑trial detention
- Article 21
- right to liberty
- IPC 302
- Arms Act
- parity
- co‑accused bail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.86850 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1534 Year-2023 Thana- DANAPUR District- Patna
======================================================
Avinash @ Avinash Kumar @ Chiki @ Chanki @ Santosh Singh S/O Sri
Ashok Kumar Gupta @ Ashok Kumar Resident of village- Bacchu Yadav ke
Makan Me Kiraiyedar, Chai Tola, Barudi Gali, P.S.- Danapur, District- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Vijay Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs.Veena Kumari Jaiswal, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
3 09-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Danapur P.S. Case No. 1534 of 2023, S.T. No. 856 of 2024
instituted for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian
Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Earlier vide order dated 11.04.2025 passed in Cr.
Misc. No. 3314 of 2025, regular bail of the petitioner was
rejected by this Court considering the ample material against the
petitioner in the case diary to show his active participation in the
alleged occurrence.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the present one is the second attempt for grant of regular bail to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86850 of 2025(3) dt.09-02-2026
2/3
the petitioner. It is mainly submitted that charge in this case is
framed and till date, only four witnesses have been examined,
which is evident from the impugned order itself. It has been
submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in
custody since 12.12.2023. 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. Learned
counsel for the petitioner further submits that other co-accused
has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 03.02.2026
passed in Cr. Misc. No. 74447 of 2025.
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, as also claim based on parity and
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86850 of 2025(3) dt.09-02-2026
3/3
India, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
7. Let the petitioner be released on bail on
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 Danapur P.S.
Case No. 1534 of 2023, S.T. No. 856 of 2024, subject to the
following conditions:
(I) One of the bailors shall be the petitioner’s own or
close member.
(II) The petitioner shall appear on each and every date
fixed during the trial and shall not remain absent on two
consecutive dates without sufficient cause.
(III) The petitioner shall not tamper with the
prosecution evidence or influence/intimidate any witness during
the course of trial.
In case of violation of any of the aforesaid conditions,
the Trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the
petitioner.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
manish/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.