Pintu Kumar @ Pintu RamversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                   CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.168 of 2026
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-142 Year-2024 Thana- JAHANABAD District- Jehanabad
                 ======================================================
                 Pintu Kumar @ Pintu Ram S/o- Santosh Ram R/v- Daudpur, Kalpa OP Ps-
                 Dist- Jehanabad
                                                                    ... ... Appellant/s
                                               Versus
           1.     The State of Bihar
           2.    Kavita Devi W/o- Late Binod Manjhi R/v- Daudpur, Kalpa OP Ps Dist-
                 Jehanabad

                                                           ... ... Respondent/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Appellant/s      :       Mr. Raju Kumar, Advocate
                                                  Mr. Shubham Samrat, Advocate
                 For the Respondent/s   :         Ms. Usha Kumari 1, SPP
                 For the Respondent No.2:         Mr. Sanjay Kumar Mishra, Advocate
                                                  Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

4   14-05-2026                         Heard Mr. Raju Kumar, learned counsel for the

                   appellant, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing

                   on behalf of the Respondent No. 2 as well as Ms. Usha Kumari

                   1, learned Spl.P.P. for the State.

                                2. This is an appeal under Sections 14(A)(2) against

                   refusal of the prayer for regular bail by order dated 05.12.2025

                   passed by the learned Court of Additional Sessions Judge-I-

                   cum-Special Judge, (SC/ST), Jehanabad in connection with Spl.

                   SC/ST Case No. 26 of 2025 arising out of Jehanabad (Kalpa)

                   P.S. Case No. 142 of 2024, F.I.R. dated 17.02.2024 registered

                   under Sections 364, 302, 201 and 120B of the IPC and Sections

                   3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.168 of 2026(4) dt.14-05-2026
                                             2/4




          (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

                       3. According to the prosecution case, the informant

          suspect that this appellant along with other accused persons

          have killed her husband.

                       4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that

          appellant has clean antecedent and he has falsely been

          implicated in the present case. He further submits that the

          allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and he

          has been made accused merely on the basis of suspicion. He

          further submits that one Chandan Kumar was apprehended and

          his confessional statement was recorded in which he has stated

          that the co-accused, namely, Kamlesh Kahar has killed the

          husband of the informant and the said Chandan Kumar is the

          uncle of the informant. He further submits that Kamlesh Kahar

          has been granted bail vide order dated 19.07.2024 by the learned

          Trial Court. He further submits that the police, after

          investigation, submitted charge sheet against the appellant. The

          appellant is in custody since 03.11.2025.

                       5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

          Respondent No. 2 as well as learned Special Public Prosecutor

          for the State have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the

          appellant and submits that the appellant is named in the FIR and
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.168 of 2026(4) dt.14-05-2026
                                             3/4




          he has participated in the present crime in question and trial is in

          progress and out of 8 charge sheet witnesses, 5 witnesses have

          been examined.

                       6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances

          of the case, let the appellant, above named, be released on bail

          on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with

          two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of

          learned Court of Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special

          Judge, (SC/ST), Jehanabad in connection with Spl. SC/ST Case

          No. 26 of 2025 arising out of Jehanabad (Kalpa) P.S. Case No.

          142 of 2024, with other following conditions:-

                       i. Appellant shall co-operate in the trial and shall be

          properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court

          and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and

          on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient

          reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.

                       ii. If the appellant tampers with the evidence or the

          witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to

          move for cancellation of bail.

                       iii. And further condition that the court below shall

          verify the criminal antecedent of the appellant and in case at

          any stage it is found that the appellant have concealed his
            Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.168 of 2026(4) dt.14-05-2026
                                                         4/4




                      criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for

                      cancellation of bail bond of the appellant. However, the

                      acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order

                      shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of

                      verification.

                                   7. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and

                      this appeal stands allowed.



                                             (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Vanisha/-

U      T