Patna High Court
Pintu Patwa @ Raja BabuversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court denied regular bail to the petitioner.
Summary
Petitioner Pintu Patwa sought regular bail in a case (PS Maharajganj No.268 of 2025) alleging assault with sword and knife resulting in the death of Ritesh Patwa. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, along with others, inflicted multiple injuries, including a cut on the deceased's palm, as corroborated by the injured brother's statement and a post‑mortem report showing nine chopped injuries. The petitioner claimed innocence, arguing that the only allegation against him was the palm injury and that he had been in judicial custody since 12‑06‑2025. The court, after hearing both sides, found the seriousness of the offences and the forensic evidence sufficient to deny bail at this stage. The petition for bail was rejected, though the petitioner may renew the application after six months if the trial remains pending, and the trial court was directed to expedite the proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail should be granted to the petitioner given the nature of the offences and the evidence of multiple injuries.
- Whether the seriousness of the charges under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 109, 118(2), 117(2), 103(1), 308(3) and 61(2) of the BNS precludes bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Penal Code (BNS) — s. 103(1), 109, 117(2), 118(2), 191(2), 191(3), 308(3), 61(2)
Subjects
- regular bail
- criminal procedure
- assault
- homicide
- post‑mortem evidence
- trial expeditement
- bail denial
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.89044 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-268 Year-2025 Thana- MAHARAJGANJ District- Siwan
======================================================
Pintu Patwa @ Raja Babu Son of Omprakash Patwa Resident of Village-
Purani Bazar, Maharajganj, P.S.- Maharajganj, District- Siwan
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramchandra Sahni, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
4 19-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP
for the State and learned counsel for the Informant.
2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in
connection with Maharajganj P.S. Case No. 268 of 2025
instituted for the offence under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 109,
118(2), 117(2), 103(1), 308(3) and 61(2) of BNS.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner
along with others has assaulted the sons of the informant by
means of sword and knife.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and committed no offence. He has further
submitted that in this case, the injured has been examined
during investigation in para-45 of the diary and from perusal of
the statement of injured Vikash Patwa one of the injured, it is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89044 of 2025(4) dt.19-03-2026
2/3
clear that he has stated that as his brother Ritesh Patwa
(deceased) came out of his shop, Krishna Patwa assaulted at his
neck and cut the neck, Lucky Patwa assaulted on his head and
this petitioner cut the palm of the deceased. He has further
stated that they assaulted him. From perusal of statement of
injured, only allegation against this petitioner is that he has
assaulted on palm of the deceased. Moreover, the petitioner is
languishing in judicial custody since 12.06.2025.
5. Learned APP appearing for the State and learned
counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer of regular
bail. Learned counsel for the informant has stated that from
perusal of the postmortem report of the deceased, it will
transpire that the deceased has received as many as nine
chopped injuries and there is also injury on palm. She has
further submitted that actually, these three persons are the main
assailants who have brutally assaulted the deceased which is
apparent from the postmortem report.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and considering the facts and circumstances of this case as
discussed above, this court is not inclined to enlarge the
petitioner on bail at this stage and, as such, his prayer for bail
stands rejected.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89044 of 2025(4) dt.19-03-2026
3/3
7. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew
his prayer for bail after six months if the trial is not concluded.
8. Learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial
and conclude the same within the period as stated above.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
shubham/-
U T
Checking your session…