In Mukesh Tiwari @ Mukesh Pandey vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices K.V Viswanathan and N.K Singh passed a 3-page long order, wherein, it reversed the 2-page long order dated February 23, 2026 by Justice Sandeep Kumar of Patna High Court. Supreme Court concluded: "6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, especially the fact that the petitioner is in custody for 10 months in a case where the maximum sentence is 3 years, we are inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 7. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail, if not required in any other case, subject to terms and conditions that the Trial Court may think fit to impose. 8. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of in the above terms."
The Special Leave Petition questioned the correctness of the order of the High Court. The petitioner is facing trial for offence under Section 304 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 202. Snatching is a cognizable, non-bailable, and non-compoundable offence.
Section 304 (1) of BNS 2023 defines snatching as a distinct form of theft. For an act to qualify as “Snatching,” it must encompass all elements of theft, including dishonest intention, lack of consent, and the movement of the property. Section 304 (2) provides that “whoever commits snatching, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine”.
If the offence is penalized under Section 304(2) according to Section 283(2) of the BNSS, the magistrate may choose to hold a summary trial. The offence has been made triable by any magistrate.
FIR registration under Sections 173 of BNSS, the procedure begins when the complainant goes to the police station to file an FIR under Section 173. Property seizure under Sections 106-107: During the investigation, the police may seize any property associated with the crime vide Section 106. It also requires the seized property to be presented to the Magistrate. Section 107 (7), (8) lays down the procedure for the attachment, forfeiture or restoration of such property to the victim. Investigation (Sections 173-196): A new provision in BNSS has been added vide Section 173(3) wherein on receipt of information relating to a cognizable offence, the officer-in-charge of the police station may with prior permission from an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police (i) Conduct preliminary enquiry to ascertain whether there exists a prima facie case for proceeding in the matter within 14 days, or (ii) proceed with investigation when there exists a prima facie case. The procedure for investigation is given under Section 176.
There is provision for charge Sheet under Section 193. If there is adequate evidence following an inquiry, a charge sheet is submitted under Section 193. Framing of Charges under Section 251): Section 251 provides the framework for the start of the trial. BNSS states that charges must be framed within 60 days of the initial charge hearing. Trial under Sections 248-260: The witnesses are examined, cross-examined, and re-examined as the trial moves along. Under Section 248, the Public Prosecutor will lead the trial.
Under Section 249, prosecution will begin. Under Section 250, there is provision for discharge. Under Section 251, there is a provision for framing of charges. Under Section 252,there is a provision for plea of guilty and conviction. Under Section 253, the date of the prosecution's evidence is fixed. Under Section 254, there is provision for prosecution-related evidence. Section 255 has provision for acquittal. Sections 258-260 has provisions for judgment. The court renders a decision based on the evidence that was put out in the trial.
Snatching is one of the new offences that has been introduced in the BNS, one of the three new criminal laws. The rising incidents of chain snatching, and mobile phone snatching, which contain sensitive data, financial information, and passwords necessitated the addition of a section to punish the same. Theft is considered “snatching” if, with the intent to commit theft, the offender suddenly, quickly, or forcibly seizes, secures, grabs, or takes away any movable property from any person or their possession. Theft was formerly specified under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), however, snatching was not specifically listed as a distinct crime.
In the High Court, Justice Kumar's order noted that it was the second attempt on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Doriganj P.S. Case of 2025 registered for the offence under Section 304 of the BNS. Earlier, the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated September 17, 2025. The second bail application was preferred by the petitioner within six months of its earlier rejection. The High Court had observed:" 4. In the opinion of this Court, this application is premature as successive bail applications cannot be entertained by this Court within few months of earlier rejection. 5. Accordingly, this application is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- which shall be deposited by the petitioner in the Patna High Court, Legal Services Authority within two weeks from today."
On the earlier occasion, Justice Kumar's order had recorded that as per the prosecution case, unknown criminals were found involved in snatching the gold chain from the neck of the wife of the informant. The motorcycle of the snatchers was recovered from the place of the occurrence which belongs to the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since June 12, 2025 and had two criminal antecedents. His earlier, order had concluded:"5. Considering the allegation levelled against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, this application for regular bail stands rejected."
Unlike Justice Kumar, Supreme Court's Division Bench was persuaded by the submission of the counsel for the petitioner to grant bail. It was submitted that the petitioner had already undergone 10 months imprisonment and that the maximum punishment is 3 years. The offence was also a Magistrate triable offence.
No comments:
Post a Comment