Patna High Court
Vijay KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The High Court set aside the trial court’s denial of bail for Rajeev Kumar and Sanjeev Kumar, granting them bail, while dismissing the appeal of Vijay Kumar.
Summary
The informant alleged that her son Jitendra was abducted and assaulted by several persons including Rajeev Kumar, Sanjeev Kumar, and Vijay Kumar, after which the son went missing. The prosecution relied on a confessional statement by Vijay Kumar that led to the recovery of the deceased's body. The trial court denied bail to all accused under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. On appeal, the Patna High Court held that the allegations against Rajeev Kumar and Sanjeev Kumar were vague, lacked eye‑witness testimony, and did not satisfy the stringent criteria for denial of bail under the SC/ST Act, and therefore set aside the trial court order and granted bail to them. Conversely, the court found Vijay Kumar’s confession pivotal and refused to overturn the trial court’s order, dismissing his appeal. The court also directed the trial court to expedite the trial without undue delays.
Issues considered
- Whether the bail applications of the accused should be denied under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
- Whether the allegations against the accused constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act given the absence of a public caste insult.
- Whether a confessional statement by an accused is sufficient to justify denial of bail for co‑accused.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 115(2), 126(2), 127(2), 137(2), 140(3), 3(5), 351(2), 351(3), 352
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal appeal
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- SC/ST Act
- confession
- abduction
- murder
- high court
- trial court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3678 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-56 Year-2025 Thana- SAHIYARA District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Rajeev Kumar Son of Late Yogendra Singh Resident Of Village- Kamaldah,
Ward No. 15 Dharampur, PS -Bathnaha District -Sitamarhi
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Gangawati Devi wife of Ram Bali Village - Pure Chandi, Majre Meramau
PS -Gurubakshganj District -Raibareli, Uttar Pradesh
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 3697 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-56 Year-2025 Thana- SAHIYARA District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Sanjeev Kumar @ Sandeep Kumar son of Bihari Mahto Resident of Ward NO
1 Sirsian PS- Tariyani Chapra, District- Sitamarhi
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Gangawati Devi wife of Ram Bali Village -Pure Chandi, Majre Meramau
PS- Gurubakshganj District -Raibareli Uttar Pradesh
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 3906 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-56 Year-2025 Thana- SAHIYARA District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Vijay Kumar Son of Shivjee Singh @ Shivaji Mahato @ Shivji Mahto
Resident Of Village- Madhubani Tola PS- Saihiyara District- Sitamarhi
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Gangawati Devi Wife of Ram Bali Village -Pure Chandi, Majre Meramau,
PS- Gurubakshganj, District -Raibareli, Uttar Pradesh
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 3678 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3678 of 2025(4) dt.15-01-2026
2/5
Mr. Rakesh Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Binay Krishna, SPP
For the Informant : Ms. Madhubala Verma, Advocate
Mr. Chitransh Raj, Advocate
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 3697 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Rakesh Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Binay Krishna, SPP
For the Informant : Ms. Madhubala Verma, Advocate
Mr. Chitransh Raj, Advocate
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 3906 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Rakesh Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Binay Krishna, SPP
For the Informant : Ms. Madhubala Verma, Advocate
Mr. Chitransh Raj, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
4 15-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned Special
Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the
informant.
2. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellants
against the order dated 23.05.2025 passed by learned 1 st
Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST (PoA)
Act, Sitamarhi whereby the prayer for bail of the appellants in
connection with Sahiyara PS Case No. 56 of 2025 instituted
under Sections 126(2), 127(2), 115(2), 137(2), 140(3), 352,
351(2), 351(3) & 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and
Sections 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST Act was rejected.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant
stated that her son Jitendra had been taken for work to ‘Vitiya
Brick Kiln’, Madhubani, about two months earlier by co-
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3678 of 2025(4) dt.15-01-2026
3/5
accused Raju. On 31.03.2025 at around 7–8 PM, Jitendra called
her and alleged that the brick kiln owner Vijay Kumar, Munshi
Sanjeev Kumar, tractor driver, Naresh Kumar, and the Rajeev
Kumar were assaulting him and he feared being killed.
Thereafter, no further contact was made, leading the informant
to suspect that her son had been abducted.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
appellants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the
present case. Charge-sheet has been submitted in this case.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that no specific
allegation has been attributed against the appellants, namely,
Rajeev Kumar and Sanjeev Kumar, rather the same is general
and omnibus in nature. It is next submitted that there is no eye
witness to the said occurrence. Dead body of the deceased has
allegedly been recovered on the confession of appellant, namely,
Vijay Kumar. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits
that the appellants have not taken the caste name of the
informant in public view. Hence, no offence under the
provisions of SC/ST Act is made out against them. The
appellants have no intention to disgrace the image of the
informant in public view. The appellants, namely, Rajeev Kumar
and Vijay Kumar are in custody since 23.04.2025 and have one
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3678 of 2025(4) dt.15-01-2026
4/5
criminal antecedent each, whereas, appellant, namely, Sanjeev
Kumar is in custody since 30.04.2025, having no criminal
antecedent. Other co-accused has been granted bail by this
Court vide order dated 16.10.2025 passed in Cr. Appeal (S.J.)
No. 2333 of 2025.
5. Learned Special P.P. for the State and the informant
have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the
appellants. It is submitted that on the basis of confessional
statement of appellant, namely, Vijay Kumar, dead body of the
deceased was recovered.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case and the period of custody undergone by the
appellants, namely, Rajeev Kumar and Sanjeev Kumar @
Sandeep Kumar, this Court is inclined to allow Criminal Appeal
(SJ) No. 3678 of 2025 and Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 3697 of
2025 as against appellants, namely, Rajeev Kumar and Sanjeev
Kumar @ Sandeep Kumar. Accordingly, the aforesaid appeals
are allowed and order dated 23.05.2025 passed by 1 st Additional
Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST (PoA) Act, Sitamarhi
is hereby set aside as against the appellants, namely, Rajeev
Kumar and Sanjeev Kumar @ Sandeep Kumar.
7. Let the appellants, namely, Rajeev Kumar and
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3678 of 2025(4) dt.15-01-2026
5/5
Sanjeev Kumar @ Sandeep Kumar, be released on bail on
furnishing bail bonds of Rs.15,000/- (Fifteen thousand) each
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
Court below/concerned Court in connection with Sahiyara PS
Case No. 56 of 2025.
8. So far as appellant, namely, Vijay Kumar is
concerned, considering the fact that on the basis of his
confessional statement, dead body of the deceased was
recovered, this Court is not inclined to allow the Criminal
Appeal (SJ) No. 3906 of 2025 as against appellant, namely,
Vijay Kumar. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 3906 of
2025 is dismissed as against appellant, namely, Vijay Kumar.
9. The Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as
expeditiously as possible without any undue delay and
unnecessary adjournments.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Raj Kishore/-
U T
Checking your session…