Patna High Court
Satrudhan Kumar @ Kallu @ Satruhan @ Shatrohan ChaudhayversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The High Court refused bail to the appellant, holding that the circumstances did not warrant its grant, though it permitted a future bail application if charges are not framed within a year.
Summary
The appellant, Satrudhan Kumar, was arrested in connection with a murder case (Ballia P.S. Case No.321 of 2024) alleged under Section 103(1) of the BNS read with Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. He applied for regular bail, contending that he is not named in the FIR, has no material against him except a confessional statement of co‑accused Satish Kumar, and has a clean antecedent. The prosecution and the informant opposed bail, asserting that the appellant conspired with co‑accused to murder the deceased and that material in the case diary implicates him. The court noted that charges had not yet been framed and that the confessional statement was unreliable, but still declined to grant bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offence and the lack of charge framing. The court, however, allowed the appellant to move for bail if charges are not framed within one year from the date of the order.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the appellant pending trial for offences under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
- Whether the confessional statement of the co‑accused can be relied upon as substantive material against the appellant.
- Whether the absence of charge framing affects the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- BNS — s. 103(1)
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v)
Subjects
- bail
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
- murder
- confessional statement
- charge framing
- post‑mortem report
- hypoxia
- strangulation
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3782 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-321 Year-2024 Thana- BALIYA District- Begusarai
======================================================
Satrudhan Kumar @ Kallu @ Satruhan @ Shatrohan Chaudhay S/O Rajendra
Chaudhary R/O Village- Sahebpur Kamal, P.S- Sahebpur Kamal, Distt.-
Begusarai, Bihar.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Naresh Paswan S/O Late Sonelal Paswan R/O Village- Singhaul Ward No.
01, P.S- Singhaul, Distt.- Begusarai.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Chandan Kumar Kashyap, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Binay Krishna, Spl.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL ORDER
6 18-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned
Special Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for
the informant.
2. The appellant seeks regular bail in connection with
Ballia P.S. Case No.321 of 2024 lodged for offences punishable
under Section 103(1) of the BNS read with Sections 3(1)(r)(s),
3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act pending before
the Court of Exclusive Special Judge SC/ST (POA) Act,
Begusarai.
3. The present appeal has been filed for setting aside
the order dated 02.08.2025 passed by learned Exclusive Special
Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Begusarai passed in Ballia P.S. Case
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3782 of 2025(6) dt.18-02-2026
2/3
No.321 of 2024.
4. Counsel for the appellant submits that the bail
application of the appellant has been rejected earlier vide order
dated 05.06.2025 passed in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.639 of 2025. He
further submits that the appellant is not named in the FIR and
only by virtue of suspicion, the name of appellant has been
inserted in this case.
5. Counsel further submits that there is no material
against him, save and except, the confessional statement of the
co-accused, namely, Satish Kumar, which cannot be relied upon.
He further submits that appellant is in custody since 05.10.2024
having clean antecedent.
6. Counsel for the appellant submits that the co-
accused, namely, Satish Kumar has been granted bail by the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.05.2025 passed
in Cr. Appeal(SJ) No.1265 of 2025. He further submits that
from the post-mortem report, it is clear that death has been
caused due to Hypoxia as a result of strangulation, whereas in
the confessional statement, allegation of murder has been made.
He further submits that there is sharp contradiction in the ocular
evidence and the post-mortem report.
7. Learned counsel for the informant vehemently
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3782 of 2025(6) dt.18-02-2026
3/3
opposes the bail of the appellant and submits that appellant is
involved in the murder of the deceased.
8. Learned Special Public Prosecutor opposes the
prayer for bail and submits that in the case diary, a detailed
material has come against the appellant that he in connivance
with other co-accused, have killed the deceased.
9. Upon specific query of the Court that whether
charge has been framed or not? In this regard, counsel submits
that as per his knowledge, charge has not been framed till date.
10. In this view of the matter, this Court is not
inclined to grant bail to the appellant. Therefore, the bail
application of the appellant is hereby rejected.
11. However, liberty is hereby granted to the appellant
that if charge shall not be concluded within one year from today,
then in that case, he may move for bail.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Prakashmani/-
U T
Checking your session…