Patna High Court
Pappu Srivastava @ Dilip Srivastava @ Dilip Kumar @ Dilip Kumar SrivastavaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
In the absence of direct evidence and given the appellant’s clean antecedent, bail may be granted despite the seriousness of the charges.
Summary
The appellant, Pappu Srivastava, was charged with murder, criminal conspiracy and offences under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for the alleged killing of the informant’s grandson in October 2021. The informant’s complaint was based on the discovery of the body near a railway track and a claim that the accused had previously threatened the victim; no eye‑witness testified to the killing. The appellant argued that the FIR contained only suspicion, that he had a clean antecedent and had been in custody since September 2025, and therefore bail should be granted. The Special Court had rejected bail on 25‑09‑2025, prompting the appeal. The Patna High Court, after considering the lack of direct evidence, the appellant’s antecedents and the period of custody, set aside the lower court’s order and granted bail on a cash bond with two sureties, subject to strict conditions. The appeal was allowed and the appellant was released on bail.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted in a murder case and offences under the SC/ST Act where evidence is primarily circumstantial.
- Whether the appellant’s clean antecedent and length of pre‑trial custody justify bail.
- Whether the absence of an eye‑witness precludes the denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 302, 34
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(2)(v), 3(i)(r)(s)
Subjects
- murder
- criminal conspiracy
- bail
- SC/ST Act
- circumstantial evidence
- pre‑trial detention
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4233 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-628 Year-2021 Thana- MOTIHARI TOWN District- East
Champaran
======================================================
Pappu Srivastava @ Dilip Srivastava @ Dilip Kumar @ Dilip Kumar
Srivastava S/o Late Thakur Prasad Resident of - Ward No. 38, Near Shiv
Mandir, Chhota Bariyarpur, Motihari, P.S - Chhatauni, District - East
Champaran at Motihari
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Ashok Ram S/o Late Shivpujan Ram Resident of - Chhota Bariyarpur, P.S -
Chhatauni, District - East Champaran
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Krishna Prasad singh, Advocate
Mr. Karandeep Kumar , Advocate
Mr. Mritunjay Kumar , Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna, Spl. PP
======================================================
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)(v) 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.4233 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. including 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.4233 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…