Patna High Court
Aditya RajversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The appellate court set aside the Special Judge’s refusal of bail and ordered the release of the appellant on bail.
Summary
The appellant, Aditya Raj, was charged with murder and related offences under Sections 109, 3(5) and 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Special Judge had refused bail on 3 November 2025. On appeal, the appellant argued that his name was absent from the FIR, that he had given a confessional statement leading to the recovery of the weapon which was never sent for forensic examination, and that there were contradictions between the FIR and the police diary regarding the place of occurrence. The State opposed bail. The Patna High Court found the procedural lapses significant and set aside the lower court’s order, directing that the appellant be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, thereby allowing the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted in a case under the SC/ST Act despite serious charges of murder.
- Whether the absence of the appellant's name in the FIR and the failure to send the recovered weapon for forensic analysis constitute grounds for bail.
- Whether contradictions in the description of the place of occurrence affect the merits of the bail application.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 103, 109, 3(5)
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- bail
- SC/ST Act
- murder
- forensic evidence
- procedural irregularities
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.712 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-407 Year-2025 Thana- BIHTA District- Patna
======================================================
Aditya Raj S/o Jitendra Kumar Singh @ Jitenda Kumar Singh R/o Village-
Musepur @ Munsepur, P.S - Bihta, District - Patna
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Kranti Devi W/o Late Sanjay Manjhi R/o Village- Musepur @ Munsepur,
P.S - Bihta, District - Patna
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Alexander Ashok, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, Spl.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 21-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
Spl. P.P. for the State.
2. This is an appeal under Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
(hereinafter referred to as the “SC/ST Act”) against the refusal
of prayer for bail vide order dated 03.11.2025 passed by the
learned Exclusive Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act, Civil Court
(Sadar), Patna in connection with Special Case No. 446 of 2025
arising out of Bihta P.S. Case No. 407 of 2025 registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 109 and 3(5) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (in short “BNS’) and under Section
3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act and subsequently added Section 103
of the BNS.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.712 of 2026(3) dt.21-04-2026
2/3
3. The case of the respondent, in short, is that the
informant along with his family and her husband were sleeping
in their house. On 02.06.2025 at about 12:00-12:30 A.M., she
heard the firing of two gunshots. As she awoke, she found that
blood was oozing from the head of the informant’s husband and
the assailants were fleeing away on a bike whom she could not
identify.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that from
perusal of the FIR it will transpire that name of appellant is not
there in the FIR. During course of investigation this appellant
has given his confessional statement and in confessional
statement he has confessed his guilt and from perusal of case
diary it will transpire that on his disclosure the weapon of
assault was discovered. Learned counsel for the appellant has
submitted that from perusal of the case diary it also transpire
that though the police has recovered the weapon of assault but
the same has not been sent for examination of FSL. Learned
counsel for the appellant has further submitted that from
Paragraph ‘4’ of the case diary it will transpire that the place of
occurrence is an open field whereas from perusal of the FIR it
will transpire that the informant has categorically stated that she
was sleeping at her house with her family. Learned counsel for
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.712 of 2026(3) dt.21-04-2026
3/3
the appellant has further submitted that the place of occurrence
as disclosed by the respondent and as disclosed by the I.O. are
contradictory. Learned counsel counsel for the appellant has
further submitted that the appellant is in judicial custody since
08.07.2025.
5. Learned Spl.P.P. for the State is present and has
vehemently opposed the bail.
6. In view of the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the appellant, the order dated 03.11.2025 passed by
the learned Exclusive Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act, Civil Court
(Sadar), Patna in connection with Special Case No. 446 of 2025
arising out of Bihta P.S. Case No. 407 of 2025 is hereby set
aside and the appellant above-named, be released on bail on
furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
the learned court of Exclusive Special Judge(SC/ST), Civil
Court (Sadar) Patna in connection with Special Case No.446 of
2025 arising out of Bihta P.S. Case No. 407 of 2025.
7. Accordingly the appeal stands allowed.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
durgesh/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.