Patna High Court
Kanahiya Kumar @ Kanhaiya KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The appeal is allowed; the order refusing bail is set aside and the appellant is granted bail with conditions.
Summary
The appellant, Kanhaiya Kumar, appealed under Section 14A(2) of the CrPC against the Special Court SC/ST Nawada's refusal to grant regular bail in a case involving multiple offences under the IPC, the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023, the Arms Act and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The appellant argued that he has a clean antecedent, was not named in the FIR, and that the investigation yielded only suspicion, while the trial had progressed slowly with many witnesses yet to be examined. The State opposed bail, alleging the appellant participated in arson of 16 houses. The court noted the prolonged custody since October 2024, the delay in trial, and that similarly situated co‑accused had been granted bail. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order, granted bail on a Rs 10,000 bond with two sureties and several conditions, and allowed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant is entitled to regular bail under Section 14A(2) of the CrPC given the nature of the offences and the circumstances of the case.
- Whether the delay in trial and the bail granted to co‑accused warrant granting bail to the appellant.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 — s. 111(3), 303(2), 326(g), 61(2)(a)
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 14A(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 109(1), 190, 191(2), 193(3), 351(2), 351(3), 352
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(1)(f), 3(1)(g), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- bail
- Section 14A
- criminal procedure
- SC/ST Act
- Arms Act
- trial delay
- co‑accused
- special court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4250 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-372 Year-2024 Thana- NAWADA MUFFASIL District- Nawada
======================================================
Kanahiya Kumar @ Kanhaiya Kumar son of Subodh Chouhan @ Subodh
Kumar Resident Of Village- Toy Bigha Beldariya Ps -Jayrampur District
-Sheikhpura
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Beyas Muni son of Sanjay Manjhi Resident of Village- Dedour Tola,
Krishna nagar at River, Ps- Muffasil, Dist- Nawada
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mrs. Pragati Singh, Advocate
Ms. Shivani Mishra, Advocate
Ms. Vidhi Shree, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna, SPP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
7 14-05-2026 Despite inter-appearance through Vakalatnama, no
one appears on behalf of the Respondent No. 2.
2. Heard Mrs. Pragati Singh, learned counsel for the
appellant as well as Mr. Binay Krishna, learned Spl.P.P. for
the State.
3. This is an appeal under Sections 14(A)(2) against
refusal of the prayer for regular bail by order dated
09.09.2025 passed by the learned Court of Exclusive Special
Court SC/ST Nawada in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case
No. 372 of 2024, F.I.R. dated 19.09.2024 registered under
Sections 191(2), 193(3), 190, 109(1), 352, 351(2), 351(3),
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4250 of 2025(7) dt.14-05-2026
2/4
326(g), 303(2), 111(3), 61(2)(a) of the BNS, 2023, Section 27
of the Arms Act and Sections 3(1)(f)(g)(r)(s)(w)/3(2)(va) and
3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
4. Earlier the bail application of the appellant has
been rejected vide order dated 30.01.2025 passed by Cr.
Appeal No. 95 of 2025 (SJ) by the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
appellant has clean antecedent and he has falsely been
implicated in the present case. She further submits that the
appellant is not named in the FIR and his name has been
transpired on the basis of suspicion and except the suspicion,
nothing has come during investigation which suggest the
involvement of the appellant in the present occurrence. She
further submits that even while rejecting the appellant's bail
application on the last occasion, the leaned Court has directed
the learned Trial Court to conclude the trial at the earliest but
despite that, the trial is not in progress. She further submits
that out of 21 charge sheet witnesses, 15 witnesses have been
examined. In view of the aforesaid, the trial is not likely to be
concluded in the near future and the appellant is in custody
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4250 of 2025(7) dt.14-05-2026
3/4
since 17.10.2024. She further submits that the similarly
situated co-accused person, namely, Mahesh Kumar has been
granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order
dated 29.07.2025 passed in Cr. App. (SJ) No. 407 of 2025 and
another co-accused, namely, Pawan Kumar has also been
granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order
dated 16.09.2025 passed in Cr. App. (SJ) No. 1219 of 2025.
6. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State
has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant
and submits that the appellant has participated in the present
crime in question and he along with the co-accused person
have burnt the house of 16 families. .
7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case, period of custody as well as the fact that similarly
situated accused persons have granted bail, let the appellant,
above named, be 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 learned Court of Exclusive
Special Court SC/ST Nawada in connection with Muffasil P.S.
Case No. 372 of 2024, with other following conditions:-
i. Appellant shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4250 of 2025(7) dt.14-05-2026
4/4
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.
ii. 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.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the appellant and in case at
any stage it is found that the appellant have concealed his
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the appellant. However, the
acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned
order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
8. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and
this appeal stands allowed.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Vanisha/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.