Patna High Court
Sujit KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The High Court held that the appellant is entitled to bail and set aside the lower court’s refusal.
Summary
The appellant Sujit Kumar was charged under IPC sections 302, 394 and 34, several provisions of the Arms Act and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for a robbery‑murder incident. He contended that he was falsely implicated, that the prosecution had not conducted a TIP and that only three of eight witnesses had been examined, none of whom could identify the shooter. The Special Public Prosecutor opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the offences and two prior criminal antecedents, though the appellant was already on bail in those cases. The High Court examined the bail petition under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST Act and, noting the lack of substantive witness testimony and the appellant’s cooperation, granted bail with monetary and procedural conditions. Consequently, the lower court’s refusal of bail was set aside and the appeal was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant is entitled to regular bail despite being charged with murder, dacoity and offences under the Arms Act and SC/ST Act.
- Whether the lower court erred in refusing bail on the ground of seriousness of the offences and prior criminal antecedents.
- Whether the conditions imposed by the High Court for bail are lawful and appropriate.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-b)a, 26, 27, 35
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 34, 394
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 14(A)(2), 3(2)(v), 3(i)(r)(s)
Subjects
- bail
- SC/ST Act
- IPC
- Arms Act
- regular bail
- appeal
- criminal antecedent
- scheduled castes and scheduled tribes
- murder
- dacoity
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.877 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-627 Year-2023 Thana- KAUWAKOL District- Nawada
======================================================
Sujit Kumar Son of Nagina Yadav Resident of Village- Islam Nagar, P.S. -
Chandradeep, District- Jamui,
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Nandlal Ravidas Son of Late Dukhi Ravidas Resident of Village - Pali, P.S. -
Kauakol, District - Nawada
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Man Mohan Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna, SPP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
12 18-04-2026 Despite valid service of notice, no one appears on
behalf of the Respondent No. 2.
2. Heard Mr. Man Mohan Kumar, 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 12.12.2024
passed by the learned Court of Exclusive Special Judge, Special
Court SC/ST (PoA) Act, Nawada in connection with Kauakol
P.S. Case No. 627 of 2023, F.I.R. dated 26.10.2023 registered
under Sections 394, 302 and 34 of the IPC, Sections 25(1-b)a,
26, 35 and 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3(i)(r)(s)/ 3(2)(v) of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.877 of 2025(12) dt.18-04-2026
2/4
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act.
4. According to the prosecution case, some unknown
miscreants intercepted the informant and on the point of gun
they looted Rs. 3,50,000/- and his mobile phone and fled away.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
appellant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the
present case. He further submits that the appellant was made
accused in the present case on the basis of suspicion and till date
no TIP has been conducted by the prosecution. He further
submits that the charge sheet has been submitted against the
appellant and altogether 3 witnesses have been examined in the
present case namely, Nandlal Ravidas (P.W-1), Tanik Ravidas
(P.W-2) and Gorelal Ravidas (P.W-3) and the informant who is
P.W-1 in the present case has categorically stated that he has no
knowledge that who has fired upon his brother and who has
snatched money from his brother and the same statement has
been given by the P.W-2 and P.W-3. He further submits that
altogether 8 witnesses are in the present trial and out of 8
witnesses only 3 witnesses have been examined. The appellant
is in custody since 22.12.2023.
6. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State on
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.877 of 2025(12) dt.18-04-2026
3/4
the material available on record as well as case diary has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant and
submits that number of witnesses have supported the case of the
prosecution and apart from that the appellant carries two
criminal antecedents other than the present one but fairly
submits that he is on bail in both the cases.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case that the witnesses have not supported the case of the
prosecution in their depositions, 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, Special
Court SC/ST (PoA) Act, Nawada in connection with Kauakol
P.S. Case No. 627 of 2023, 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
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to
move for cancellation of bail.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.877 of 2025(12) dt.18-04-2026
4/4
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…