Patna High Court
Rahul KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The appeal is allowed and the appellant is released on bail with conditions.
Summary
The appellant, Rahul Kumar, was charged under Sections 103 and 3(5) of the Bihar Navikaran (BNS) Act, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in connection with the murder of an informant's husband. He contended that he has a clean antecedent, was merely the driver of a co‑accused, and was falsely implicated based on the co‑accused’s confessional statements and his own alleged confession, which he claimed did not amount to participation in the crime. The Special Public Prosecutor opposed bail, noting a confession in the case diary but also acknowledging the appellant’s lack of direct participation. The High Court, after considering the circumstances, set aside the lower court’s refusal and granted regular bail on a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties, imposing conditions of cooperation, non‑tampering with evidence, and verification of criminal antecedent. The appeal was consequently allowed.
Issues considered
- What is the applicability of regular bail provisions to an accused under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act who has allegedly confessed?
- Whether the appellant's alleged confession and presence at the scene constitute sufficient ground to deny bail.
- Whether the charge sheet and investigation substantiate the appellant's participation in the offence.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Navikaran (BNS) Act, 2023 — s. 103, 3(5)
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s)
Subjects
- bail
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act
- confession
- regular bail
- criminal antecedent
- murder
- driver
- charge sheet
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.65 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-694 Year-2025 Thana- HAJIPUR SADAR District- Vaishali
======================================================
Rahul Kumar S/O Basawan Ray R/O Village- Laxman Nagar, PS- Gaighat,
Distt- Muzaffarpur
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Dewenti Devi W/O Dilip Paswan R/O Village-Shawajpur Patwa, PS-
Kajipur,Distt-Vaishali
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna, SPP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 25-06-2026 Despite validly served notice, no one appears on
behalf of the Respondent No. 2.
2. Heard Mr. Ganesh Prasad 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 09.12.2025
passed by the learned Court of Exclusive Special Judge (SC/ST)
Act, Vaishali at Hajipur in connection with Hajipur Sadar P.S.
Case No. 694 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 31.08.2025 registered under
Sections 103 and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 and Sections 3(1) (r), 3
(1) (s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.65 of 2026(4) dt.25-06-2026
2/4
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
4. According to the prosecution case, co-accused Md.
Anwar along with Md. Aslam have killed the husband of the
informant due to petty dispute.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
appellant has clean antecedent and he has falsely been
implicated in the present case. Initially the appellant was not
named in the FIR and his name has been transpired during
investigation on the basis of confessional statement of the co-
accused persons as well as upon the fact that the appellant
himself confessed his guilt in the present case. He further
submits that from perusal of the confessional statement of the
appellant it suggest that there is no specific allegation against
him and he has not participated in the present crime in question.
He is the driver of the co-accused Md. Anwar so he was also
present at the place of occurrence. He further submits that the
specific allegation is against the co-accused Md. Anwar that he
has assaulted to the deceased by means of iron rod due to which
the deceased died at the spot. He further submits that except the
aforesaid, nothing has come during investigation which suggest
the involvement of the petitioner in the present occurrence. He
further submits that the police, after investigation, submitted
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.65 of 2026(4) dt.25-06-2026
3/4
charge sheet against the appellant. The appellant is in custody
since 07.09.2025.
6. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant and
submits that from perusal of paragraph no. 58 of the case diary
it appears that the appellant has confessed his guilt in the
present occurrence but fairly submits that it also appears from
the aforesaid that the appellant has not participated in the
present occurrence.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case, 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 Judge (SC/ST) Act, Vaishali
at Hajipur in connection with Hajipur Sadar P.S. Case No. 694
of 2025, 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
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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.65 of 2026(4) dt.25-06-2026
4/4
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.