Patna High Court
Sushil Kumar @ Chhotu KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The appeal is allowed and the order rejecting bail is set aside, granting bail to the appellant.
Summary
The appellant, Sushil Kumar, was charged with murder under IPC sections 302, 201, 34 and the SC/ST (POA) Act sections 3(2)(iv) and 3(2)(v). The Special Judge had rejected his bail application, prompting an appeal. The appellant argued that he was falsely implicated, was not named in the FIR, and that the key informant did not implicate him, while also highlighting his clean record. The State opposed the bail, relying on a prior rejection of his bail petition. The Patna High Court, after hearing both sides, set aside the lower court’s order and allowed the appeal, directing that the appellant be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant is entitled to bail despite the serious nature of the charges under IPC and the SC/ST (POA) Act
- Whether the evidence on record sufficiently links the appellant to the alleged murder
- Whether the appellant's clean criminal record and alleged false implication warrant bail
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 201, 302, 34
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(2)(iv), 3(2)(v)
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- IPC
- SC/ST (POA) Act
- false implication
- criminal antecedent
- appellate court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.38 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-272 Year-2024 Thana- SITAMARHI District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Sushil Kumar @ Chhotu Kumar Son of Ram Pratap Rai Resident of Village-
Bhagwatipur, Amaghatta, P.S.- Sitmarhi, Distt.- Sitamarhi
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Marchhiya Devi Wife of Shiva Paswan Resident of Village- Amghata, Ward
No. 31, P.S.- Sitamarhi, Distt.- Sitamarhi
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Vikash Kumar Jha, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Usha Kumari 1, Spl. PP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
5 22-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
Special Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant
against the order dated 25.11.2024 passed by learned Special
Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Sitamarhi whereby the prayer for bail
of the appellant in connection with Trial No. 118 of 2024 arising
out of Sitamarhi P.S. Case No. 272 of 2024 under Sections 302,
201, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 3(2)(iv), 3(2)(v)
of SC/ST (POA) Act was rejected.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the informant,
along with her son, went to attend a wedding at the house of
Jageshwar Paswan. She returned home, and she called her son
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.38 of 2025(5) dt.22-01-2026
2/3
on his mobile, but he could not attend the call. Thereafter, she
searched for him, but he could not be traced. In the morning,
one Rajendra Paswan was informed about the dead body of her
son, which was lying at the railway line after cutting his neck. It
is further alleged that some days ago the appellant and the co-
accused persons had threatened to kill him.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant
that appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned
counsel for the appellant submits that the name of this appellant
is not there in the FIR. During the course of the investigation,
one Triveni has given his confessional statement, and in his
confessional statement, he has stated that he, along with the
appellant, has killed the deceased. He also submits that in this
case, the trial is going on, and he has filed the deposition of a
total of six witnesses. First of all, he has placed the deposition of
PW-6, namely, Marchia Devi, who is the informant of this case.
In her cross-examination, she has stated that the appellant did
not have any role in the murder of her son. In the entire
examination-in-chief, she has not named this appellant. He
further submits that other witnesses have also not named the
appellant. He further submits that the appellant has no criminal
antecedent and he is languishing in judicial custody since
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.38 of 2025(5) dt.22-01-2026
3/3
22.08.2024.
5. The appeal for bail is opposed by learned Spl. P.P.
for the State and submits that earlier the bail petition of the
appellant had been rejected vide order dated 24.04.2025 by the
learned coordinate bench in Cr. APP (SJ) No. 51 of 2025.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
taking into consideration, this Court is inclined to allow this
appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned
order dated 25.11.2024 is hereby set aside.
7. The appellant is directed to be enlarged on bail in
connection with Trial No. 118 of 2024 arising out of Sitamarhi
P.S. Case No. 272 of 2024 on furnishing bail bond of Rs.
10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge,
SC/ST (POA) Act, Sitamarhi.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Sudhanshu/-
U T
Checking your session…