Patna High Court
Jitendra Kumar @ Jitendra MahtoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The High Court held that the appellant is entitled to bail and set aside the lower court’s refusal.
Summary
The appellant, Jitendra Kumar, was charged under IPC sections 302 and 34, Arms Act section 27, and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for allegedly firing at an informant's mother, causing her death. He had been in custody since 27 September 2024 and sought regular bail, which was denied by the Special Judge SC/ST Act, Patna. On appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST Act, the High Court noted that the key witness (PW‑2) had not corroborated the prosecution’s case and had not identified co‑accused, and that the trial was still pending examination of five witnesses. Considering the appellant’s clean antecedent, the prolonged custody, and the stage of the trial, the Court granted bail on a Rs.10,000 bond with two sureties and imposed conditions for cooperation and non‑tampering. The lower court’s order refusing bail was set aside and the appeal was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant is entitled to regular bail pending trial under the SC/ST Act despite the seriousness of the offences.
- Whether the refusal of bail by the Special Judge was justified in view of the informant’s non‑cooperation and the incomplete trial.
- Whether the appellant’s clean antecedent and period of custody warrant the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 34
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 14(A)(2), 3(2)(v)
Subjects
- bail
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
- IPC
- murder
- trial delay
- criminal antecedent
- special judge
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3079 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-709 Year-2022 Thana- DHANARUA District- Patna
======================================================
Jitendra Kumar @ Jitendra Mahto S/o- Late Krishna Prasad @ Late Krishna
Mahto Village- Chhati Ps- Dhanarua Dist- Patna
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Harendra Paswan S/o- Ramji Paswan Village- Chhati Ps- Dhanarua Dist-
Patna
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Krishna Pd. Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Abhimanyu Deo, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Ms. Usha Kumari 1, SPP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
6 14-05-2026 Despite inter-appearance through Vakalatnama, no
one appears on behalf of the Respondent No. 2.
2. Heard Mr. Krishna Pd. Singh, learned senior
counsel for the appellant as well as Ms. Usha Kumari 1,
learned Spl.P.P. for the State.
3. This is an appeal under Sections 14(A)(2) against
refusal of the prayer for regular bail by order dated
26.04.2025 passed by the learned Court of Exclusive Special
Judge SC/ST Act, Patna in connection with Danarua P.S. Case
No. 709 of 2022, F.I.R. dated 22.11.2022 registered under
Sections 302/34 of the IPC, Section 27 of the Arms Act and
Sections 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3079 of 2025(6) dt.14-05-2026
2/4
Tribes Act (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
4. According to the prosecution case, all the accused
persons including this appellant abused the informant's
mother and fired upon her resulting into her death.
5. 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 as per
the allegation in the FIR the informant claimed that he has
saw that the appellant has fired upon his mother and she died
at the spot. Learned counsel for the appellant draws attention
of this Court on the fact that the trial has begun and informant
has deposed before the trial court as P.W.-2 and he has not
supported the case of the prosecution and even he has not
identified the co-accused persons. Hence, in view of the
aforesaid the appellant may be enlarge on bail. The appellant
is in custody since 27.09.2024.
6. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State
has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant.
7. Vide order dated 01.04.2026 a report was called
with regard to the stage of the trial. Report of the learned Trial
Court dated 04.04.2026 reveals that out of 12 charge sheet
witnesses, 7 witnesses have been examined and the case is
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3079 of 2025(6) dt.14-05-2026
3/4
pending for the examination of rest of the 5 prosecution
witnesses.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in
view of the report of the learned Trial Court, the trial is not
likely to be concluded in the near future and the appellant is in
custody since 27.09.2024.
9. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case that the informant has not supported the case of the
prosecution in his deposition before the learned Trial Court,
report of the learned Trial Court as well as period of custody,
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 Exclusive Special Judge SC/ST Act, Patna in
connection with Danarua P.S. Case No. 709 of 2022, 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.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3079 of 2025(6) dt.14-05-2026
4/4
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
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.
10. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and
this appeal stands allowed.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Vanisha/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.