Patna High Court

Manish Kumar @ ChintuversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 11 February 2026
Disposal: BAIL GRANTED
Bench: CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA

Holding

The court held that the two‑year custodial detention without trial violated the petitioner’s Article 21 rights and consequently granted bail.

Summary

Manish Kumar had been in custody since 19 February 2024 for a case registered as Vaishali P.S. Case No. 328 of 2020. Only six of ten prosecution witnesses had been examined, and an informant had given a clean chit to the petitioner. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the two‑year detention without trial violated his fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Hussainara Khatoon. The State could not refute the factual claim of prolonged custody. The court agreed that the delay amounted to a violation of Article 21 and, invoking Section 480(3) of the BNSS, ordered the petitioner’s release on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties.

Issues considered

Does the petitioner’s prolonged pre‑trial detention violate Article 21 of the Constitution?
Should bail be granted under Section 480(3) of the BNSS in view of the delay in trial?

Subjects

bail
pre‑trial detention
Article 21
right to speedy trial
fundamental rights
Criminal Procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.88126 of 2025
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-328 Year-2020 Thana- VAISHALI District- Vaishali
                 ======================================================
                 Manish Kumar @ Chintu S/O Rampravesh Thakur Resident of Village-
                 Bhagwanpur Ratti, P.S- Vaishali, District- Vaishali.

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. P.N. Shahi, Sr. Adv.
                                                   Mr. Amit Anand, Adv.
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Yogendra Kumar,Adv.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   11-02-2026                    Heard the parties.

                                 2. Present is second successive bail of petitioner

                   after rejection of first prayer of bail of petitioner, through

                   Cr. Misc. No. 68119 of 2024 dated 18.10.2024.

                                 3. The present bail petition is preferred solely on

                   the ground of custody period and slow progress of trial.

                                 4. Mr. PN Shahi, learned senior counsel

                   submitted that petitioner remains in custody since

                   19.02.2024 i.e., almost about two years and till now only

                   6 charge-sheeted witnesses were examined in this case

                   out of 10. In this connection, it is pointed out that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88126 of 2025(2) dt.11-02-2026
                                            2/3




          testimony of informant who examined before learned trial

          court as P.W.-4 giving clean chit to the petitioner qua his

          involvement with present crime in question.

                       5. Arguing further, it is submitted that petitioner

          cannot be kept behind bar for unlimited period in want of

          trial and as such slow progress of trial is violation of

          fundamental right of petitioner as available under Article

          21 of the Constitution of India. In support of his

          submission learned senior counsel relied upon the legal

          report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through

          Hussainara Khatoon & Ors Vs. Home Secretary,

          State of Bihar, [1980 (1) SCC 98].

                       6. Learned APP while opposing the prayer of

          bail could not disputed aforesaid factual submission qua

          custody period.

                       7. In view of aforesaid factual submission and by

          taking note of fact as still this matter is pending for

          examination of prosecution witnesses, where petitioner

          remains in custody about two years i.e.,since 19.02.2024
              Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88126 of 2025(2) dt.11-02-2026
                                                          3/3




                        , suggesting violation of fundamental right of petitioner as

                        available under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,

                        accordingly petitioner above named, is directed to be

                        released on bail in connection with Vaishali P.S. Case No.

                        328 of 2020 on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-

                        (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like

                        amount each to the satisfaction of learned District and

                        Addl. Sessions Judge XII, Vaishali at Hajipur /concerned

                        court, subject to the conditions as mentioned under

                        Section 480(3) of BNSS.



                                                                 (Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Sudha/-

U         T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…