Patna High Court
Suman KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The Court held that the general allegation was insufficient to deny bail and that the appellant was not specifically implicated, thereby granting bail.
Summary
The appellant, Suman Kumar, was charged with murder under several provisions of the B.N.S., 2023 and the SC/ST Act, and his bail application was rejected by the Special Court. He contended that he was falsely implicated, asserting that another individual, Ranjan, was the actual shooter and that there was no specific allegation against him. The prosecution argued that the FIR named the appellant and that eye‑witness statements linked him to threatening the deceased. The High Court observed that the case against the appellant consisted only of a general, omnibus allegation without specific incriminating evidence. Consequently, the Court set aside the lower court’s order, allowed the appeal, and directed that the appellant be released on bail upon furnishing a bail bond with sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether the presence of a general, omnibus allegation against the appellant suffices to deny bail under the B.N.S., 2023 and SC/ST Act.
- Whether the appellant’s claim of false implication and lack of specific charge warrants the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S., 2023 — s. 103(2), 109, 115(2), 126(2), 3(5)
- SC/ST Act — s. 3(ii)(va), 3(i)(r), 3(i)(s)
Subjects
- bail
- false implication
- SC/ST Act
- general allegation
- murder
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4602 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-408 Year-2024 Thana- DAWATH District- Rohtas
======================================================
Suman Kumar Son of Late Baban Singh Resident of Village- Jagodhara PS--
Dawath Distt- Rohtas
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Ravish Kumar son of Nagendra Paswan Resident of Village- Jagodhara PS--
Dawath Distt- Rohtas
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Shashi Kant, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, Spl. P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
5 20-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned
Special Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for
the informant.
2. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant
against the order dated 23.07.2025 passed by learned Special
Court SC/ST Act, Sasaram, Rohtas whereby the prayer for bail
of the appellant in connection with Dawath P.S. Case No. 408 of
2024 under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 103(2), 109, 3(5) of the
B.N.S., 2023 and Sections 3(i)(r), 3(i)(s), 3(ii)(va) of SC/ST Act
was rejected.
3. The case of the respondent, in short, is that the
appellant along with others have killed the brother of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4602 of 2025(5) dt.20-04-2026
2/3
respondent.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant
that appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. He also
submits that during the course of investigation, it has come that
one Ranjan is the person who has fired at the deceased. There is
no specific allegation against the appellant. He further submits
that similarly situated co-appellant namely, Sikandra Kumar @
Sikendra Kumar @ Sikandra Kumar has been granted bail by
the learned coordinate bench of this court vide Cr. Appeal (SJ)
No. 2462 of 2025. Moreover, a statement has been made in
para-3 of this petition that the appellant has got no criminal
antecedent and he is languishing in judicial custody since
20.02.2025.
5. The appeal for bail is vehemently opposed by
learned Spl. P.P. for the state and learned counsel for the
respondent and submitted that the appellant is named in FIR.
Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that in
paragraph nos. 20, 21 and 22 of the case diary, the eye-witnesses
have specifically stated that Suman called the deceased and the
call was made from mobile of Ranjan. Suman was also
threatening the deceased and others for filing case of theft and
Ranjan has fired at the deceased. From perusal of these
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4602 of 2025(5) dt.20-04-2026
3/3
paragraphs of the case diary, it is clear that I.O. has recorded the
statement of the witnesses showing them to be eye witness.
From perusal of the statement of these witnesses, it is clear that
the main thrust of the allegation is against Ranjan. This
appellant has only threatened the deceased and others for filing
case of theft, as, according to him, they have stolen the paddy
crop.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
taking into consideration that there is general and omnibus
allegation against the appellant, the Court is inclined to allow
this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the
impugned order dated 23.07.2025 is hereby set aside.
7. The appellant is directed to be enlarged on bail in
connection with Dawath P.S. Case No. 408 of 2024 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 Special Court, SC/ST Act, Sasaram, Rohtas.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Sudhanshu/-
U T
Checking your session…