Patna High Court
Satyam Kunwar @ Satyam KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SHAILENDRA SINGH
Holding
The appeal is allowed and the appellant is released on bail.
Summary
The appellant, Satyam Kunwar, appealed against the trial court's order rejecting his bail application in a case under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015. He had been in custody since May 2023 and argued that the trial had progressed very slowly, with only two of six prosecution witnesses examined, one of whom turned hostile and the other being a hearsay witness. The State opposed bail, citing serious allegations against the appellant, but acknowledged the trial delay. The High Court noted the prolonged detention, the prosecution's lingering attitude, and the lack of substantive witness testimony, and consequently granted bail on a bond of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the lower court's order denying bail.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the appellant despite serious allegations under the SC/ST Act given the delay in trial proceedings
- Whether the prosecution's failure to examine key witnesses justifies the grant of bail
Subjects
- bail
- trial delay
- SC/ST Act
- scheduled caste
- scheduled tribe
- criminal procedure
- prosecution witnesses
- hearsay
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3635 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-416 Year-2020 Thana- PARBATTA District- Khagaria
======================================================
Satyam Kunwar @ Satyam Kumar, Son of Bilash Kunwar, R/o - Srirampur
Thuthi, P.S - Parbatta, District – khagaria .. ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Mritunjay Sharma, son of Late Nago Sharma Resident of village - Temtha
Karari, Ward no. 2, PS- Parbatta, Dist- Khagaria
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Anil Kumar Choudhary, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, SPP
For the Resp. No. 2 : None.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL ORDER
5 09-01-2026 Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Choudhary, learned counsel
for the appellant and Mr. Sadanand Paswan, learned SPP for the
State.
2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant
under section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 (in short, ‘SC/ST
Act’) against the order dated 29.05.2025 passed by the court of
learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum Special
Judge (SC/ST), Khagaria, in connection with Supplementary
Parbatta P.S. Case No. 416 of 2020, by which the appellant’s
prayer for bail has been rejected.
3. The main submissions advanced by appellant’s
counsel are that this is the second attempt of the appellant to get
the relief of bail and his first prayer for the same relief was
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3635 of 2025(5) dt.09-01-2026
2/3
rejected by this Court vide order dated 10.01.2025 passed in Cr.
APP(SJ) No. 1132/2024, by which the trial court was directed to
take step to conclude the appellant’s trial as early as possible
keeping in view that the appellant has been languishing in jail
since 19.05.2023 but even then there is no significant progress in
his trial as out of four witnesses shown in the chargesheet, only
two witnesses have been examined, which shows the lingering
attitude of the prosecution and out of the said two witnesses, one
witness went hostile and the second witness, who happens to be
the wife of the deceased, is a hearsay witness. It is further
submitted that a separate trial is running in connection with co-
accused Bipul Singh bearing Sessions Trial No. 31/2022 in which
three material witnesses of the prosecution have also been
examined whose depositions’ copies have been filed with this
appeal and the informant has not supported the case of the
prosecution. It is lastly submitted that there is no chance of
completion of the appellant’s trial in near future.
4. No one appears on behalf of the respondent No. 2
despite the notice having been served upon him.
5. On the other hand, learned SPP appearing for the
State has opposed the prayer of the appellant and submits that
there is serious allegation against the appellant, though, a
significant delay has taken place in the trial of the appellant as
revealed by the appellant in his petition.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3635 of 2025(5) dt.09-01-2026
3/3
6. Heard both the sides and perused the relevant
materials. Though there is serious allegation against the
appellant, however, this is the second attempt of the appellant to
get the relief of bail and while rejecting his first prayer, the trial
court was directed to conclude the appellant’s trial as early as
possible and thereafter, a period of one year has passed but even
then only two prosecution witnesses out of six prosecution
witnesses have been examined so far, which shows lingering
attitude of the prosecution, so, considering this aspect as well as
appellant’s custody period and the above submissions, this Court
is now inclined to release the appellant on bail. Accordingly, let
the appellant named above be released on bail on furnishing bail
bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
District & Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum Special Judge
(SC/ST), Khagaria, in connection with Supplementary Parbatta
P.S. Case No. 416 of 2020.
7. In result, the instant appeal stands allowed and the
order impugned is hereby set aside.
(Shailendra Singh, J)
annu/-
U T
Checking your session…