Patna High Court
Manish KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The appeal is allowed; the order rejecting bail is set aside and the appellant is granted bail on condition of a Rs.10,000 bond with two sureties.
Summary
Manish Kumar was arrested in connection with a shooting that resulted in the death of a resident's son, alleged under Sections 103(1) and 61(2) of the B.N.S., Section 27 of the Arms Act, and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, later amended with additional Arms Act provisions. The Additional Sessions Judge denied his bail application, relying on the seriousness of the offences and the FIR. The appellant contended that the only incriminating material against him was a confessional statement by a co‑accused, that he had no prior criminal record, and that similarly situated co‑accused had been granted bail. The State opposed bail. The Patna High Court, after hearing both sides, held that the evidence did not justify continued denial of bail and set aside the lower court’s order, directing that the appellant be released on a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to the appellant despite the serious nature of the charges under the B.N.S., Arms Act and SC/ST Act.
- Whether the confessional statement of a co‑accused suffices as substantive evidence to justify denial of bail.
- Whether the appellant’s lack of prior criminal record and the grant of bail to co‑accused warrant bail in this case.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- Arms Act
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
- confessional statement
- murder
- judicial custody
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4548 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-323 Year-2025 Thana- ARA NAGAR District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Manish Kumar Son of Ram Niwas Ray R/o Village- Dumariya, P.S.- Bihta,
District- Patna
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sudama Ram Son of Biswanath Ram Resident at Shivganj Amedkar Kaloni,
P.S.- Ara Nagar, District- Bhojpur
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Dharmesh Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna, Spl.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
6 13-05-2026 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 11.09.2025 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST, Bhojpur at Ara
whereby the prayer for bail of the appellants in connection with
Ara Town P.S. Case No. 323 of 2025 under Sections 103(1) and
61(2) of B.N.S., Section 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3(2)(v)
of SC/ST Act and later on, Sections 25(1-b)a, 26 and 35 of the
Arms Act was added, was rejected.
3. The case of the respondent is that the son of the
respondent was sitting before his door. At that time, three persons
on a pulsar bike arrived and started making firing
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4548 of 2025(6) dt.13-05-2026
2/3
indiscriminately. The respondent came out of the house hearing
the sound of the firing and saw that Sudhir Yadav, Jitendra Yadav
and Amit Yadav were there. Sudhir Yadav and Jitendra Yadav
were firing with pistol. The son of the respondent fell down there
in a pool of blood. It is further alleged that Amit was driving the
pulsar and kept his bike in start mode. The injured was rushed to
the Sadar Hospital where he was declared dead. It is further
alleged that near the house of the respondent, there is cowshed of
Manoj Yadav, Musa Yadav and Pramod Yadav. It is alleged that
they along with son-in-law of Pramod Yadav, namely, Sonu
Yadav have worked as liner. They were seen in the morning
between 7:00 A.M. to 8:00 A.M. passing by bike and were
calling on mobile somebody.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant
that appellant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in
this case. From perusal of the F.I.R., it is clear that the main
thrust of allegation is against Sudhir, Jitendra and Amit. There is
no any specific overt act against this appellant. During course of
investigation, Sudhir Yadav, one of the assailants has given his
confessional statement and in his confessional statement, he has
named this appellant. It has also been submitted that save and
except confessional statement, there is nothing against this
appellant. A statement has been made in para-3 of this petition
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4548 of 2025(6) dt.13-05-2026
3/3
that the appellant has got no criminal antecedent. Moreover, he is
languishing in judicial custody since 18.05.2025. Learned
counsel has further submitted that similarly situated other co-
accused persons have already been granted bail by this court vide
Cr. APP(SJ) Nos. 4289 of 2025 and 4273 of 2025.
5. The appeal for bail is vehemently opposed by
learned Spl. P.P. for the State.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is
inclined to allow this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed
and the impugned order dated 11.09.2025 passed in connection
with Ara Town P.S. Case No. 323 of 2025 is hereby set aside.
7. The appellant is directed to be enlarged on bail in
connection with Ara Town P.S. Case No. 323 of 2025 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 Additional Sessions Judge 1st , Bhojpur at Ara.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Shubham/-
Sneha/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.