Patna High Court
Chhotu Srivastava @ Hari Shankar Prasad @ Chhote SrivastavaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The appeal is allowed and the order rejecting bail is set aside, with bail granted subject to strict conditions.
Summary
The appellant, Chhotu Srivastava, was charged with murder, criminal conspiracy and offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for the killing of the informant's grandson. The informant alleged that the accused had previously threatened the victim, but no eye‑witness testified to seeing the appellant commit the crime. The Special Court had rejected the appellant's bail application, leading to an appeal before the Patna High Court. The High Court noted the appellant's clean antecedents, the lack of direct evidence, and the length of custody, and therefore set aside the order refusing bail. Bail was granted on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions of personal appearance and non‑tampering with evidence or witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to an accused of murder and offences under the SC/ST Act in the absence of eye‑witness testimony.
- Whether the order of the Special Court rejecting bail is liable to be set aside on the ground of insufficient material evidence and prolonged custody.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 302, 34
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(2)(va), 3(i)(r)(s)
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- criminal conspiracy
- SC/ST Act
- high court appeal
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4224 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-628 Year-2021 Thana- MOTIHARI TOWN District- East
Champaran
======================================================
Chhotu Srivastava @ Hari Shankar Prasad @ Chhote Srivastava Son of Late
Thakur Prasad Resident Of Ward No 38, Near Shiv Mandir, Chhota
Bariyarpur, Motihari, Ps -Chhatauni District- East Champaran At Motihari
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Ashok Ram son of Late shivpujan Ram Resident of Village- Chhota
Bariyapur, Ps- Chhatauni, Dist- East Champaran
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Karandeep Kumar , Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna, Spl. PP
For informant : Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Satish Kumar Sinha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
3 22-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned
Spl. Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State and
learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2.
2. This appeal has been preferred on behalf of the
appellant for setting aside the order dated 25.09.2025
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120
( B ) and 34 of IPC and Section 3(i)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, whereby the prayer for bail of the appellant has
been rejected.
3 . As per prosecution case , informant alleged that on
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4224 of 2025(3) dt.22-01-2026
2/3
19.10.2021, grandson of the informant went outside the house to
visit fair and thereafter, went missing. On 15.10.2021, informant
got to know that one dead body was lying near the railway track
in an abandoned position . Upon reaching , he saw the dead
body of his grandson lying on the track . Informant suspects that
all the accused persons named in the F.I.R. incouding these
appellants killed the grandson of the informant as they had
earlier threatened the deceased.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that from
bare persual of F.I.R., it is apparent that informant is not an eye
witness to the alleged occurrence . Only suspicion has been
raised against this appellant because earlier it is alleged that this
appellant along with other co-accused persons, threatened the
grandson of informant. During investigation , none of the
witnesses claimed to have seen this appellant committing the
alleged occurrence . Appellant claims clean antecedent.
Appellant is in custody since 08.09.2025 .
5 . Learned Spl. Public Prosecutor for the State and
learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 oppose the bail
application .
6. Considering the aforesaid facts, period of custody and
circumstances of the case , let the appellant, as named above be
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4224 of 2025(3) dt.22-01-2026
3/3
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 the learned Special Court SC / ST, East
Champaran at Motihari in connection with Town ( Motihari )
P.S. Case No. 628 of 2021.
7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated
25.09.2025 is set aside and this criminal appeal is allowed on
the following conditions:
“(1) Appellant shall cooperate 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 .
(2) 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.”
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
Koushik/-
U T
Checking your session…