Patna High Court
Kaushal KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The appeal is allowed; the order rejecting bail is set aside and bail is granted to the appellants.
Summary
The appellants, Kaushal Kumar and Nitin Kumar, were charged under multiple provisions of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, the Arms Act and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for allegedly firing at the house of the respondent and using caste slurs, resulting in injury to a third person. The appellants contended that they were falsely implicated, that the allegations were vague, no specific overt act could be linked to them, and that a compromise had been reached between the parties. They also highlighted that a co‑accused had already been granted bail in a similar case. The Special Public Prosecutor opposed bail, but the High Court, after hearing both sides, found no specific overt act against the appellants and was persuaded by the compromise petition. Consequently, the Court set aside the trial court’s order rejecting bail and directed that the appellants be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties each. The appeal was therefore allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellants are entitled to bail despite the serious charges under the B.N.S., Arms Act and SC/ST (POA) Act.
- Whether there is a specific overt act attributable to the appellants justifying denial of bail.
- Whether the existence of a compromise petition influences the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-B)a, 26, 27
- B.N.S. — s. 109, 115(2), 126(2), 3(5), 352
- SC/ST (POA) Act — s. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v)
Subjects
- bail
- SC/ST (POA) Act
- Arms Act
- false implication
- compromise petition
- caste violence
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4608 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-136 Year-2025 Thana- DELHA District- Gaya
======================================================
1. Kaushal Kumar S/O Lavward Prasad Resident of mohalla- Kharkhura
Tarwana, P.S.-Delha, District-Gaya
2. Nitin Kumar @ Network @Nitin Kumar Netwark S/O Jitendra Prasad.
Resident of mohalla- Kharkhura Tarwana, P.S.-Delha, District-Gaya
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sonamanti Devi W/O Shrawan Manjhi Resident of Kharkhura Tarwana,
P.S.-Delha, District- Gaya
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, Spl.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
6 08-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned
Special Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellants
against the order dated 25.09.2025 passed by learned Special
Judge Exclusive, SC/ST (POA) Court, Gaya whereby the prayer
for bail of the appellant in connection with Delha P.S. Case No.
136 of 2025 under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 352, 109, 3(5) of
B.N.S., Section 25(1-B)a/26/27 of the Arms Act and Sections
3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act was rejected.
3. The case of the respondent in short is that on
15.06.2025 at about 08:10 PM, the respondent was sitting near
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4608 of 2025(6) dt.08-05-2026
2/3
her house. It is alleged that the appellants along with others
accused went there and started firing at the house of the
respondent. One shot was fired at the main gate of Munnu
Manjhi. It is further alleged that the appellants and others
abused with caste name. One accused, namely, Gopal Kumar,
has received injuries in the course of running.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants
that appellants have been falsely implicated in this case.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that from perusal of
the case of the respondent, it is clear that the nature of the
allegation is general and omnibus. Moreover, nobody has
received any injury. He further submits that with the help of
well-wishers, good sense has prevailed between the parties and
they have filed a compromise petition in the learned trial court.
Moreover, the appellants are languishing in judicial custody
since 04.07.2025. Learned counsel for the appellants has further
submitted that similarly situated other co-accused person has
already been granted bail by this Court vide Cr. App(SJ) No.
4066 of 2025.
5. The appeal for bail is opposed by learned Spl. P.P.
for the State.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4608 of 2025(6) dt.08-05-2026
3/3
taking into consideration that there is no any specific overt act
against the appellants, the Court is inclined to allow this appeal.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order
dated 25.09.2025 is hereby set aside.
7. The appellants are directed to be enlarged on bail
in connection with Delha P.S. Case No. 136 of 2025 on
furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only)
each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction
of the learned Special Judge Exclusive, SC/ST (POA) Court,
Gaya.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Shubham/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.