Patna High Court
Monu Kumar @ Monu SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- KHATIM REZA
Holding
The court held that the petitioner is entitled to regular bail subject to the stipulated conditions.
Summary
Monu Kumar was arrested in a case registered under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for alleged kidnapping, extortion, assault and related offences. The prosecution alleged that he, along with co‑accused, forcibly entered the complainant's house, assaulted his wife and demanded a ransom. The petitioner contended that the FIR was vague, he was falsely implicated and that his brother, a co‑accused, had already been granted bail. The State opposed the bail application. After considering the facts and the submissions, the court ordered the release of the petitioner on regular bail with a cash bond of Rs.10,000 and two sureties, imposing conditions such as cooperation with the trial, regular appearance before the police, and restrictions on tampering with evidence. The application for bail was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail despite the serious nature of the charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
- Whether the allegations in the FIR are specific enough to deny bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 109(1), 115(2), 126(2), 308(4), 308(5), 3(5), 352
Subjects
- regular bail
- bail conditions
- kidnapping
- extortion
- assault
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Patna High Court
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.122 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3 Year-2025 Thana- PACHMAHLA District- Patna
======================================================
Monu Kumar @ Monu Singh S/O Pramod Singh R/O Village- Nauranga, P.S-
Pachmahla, Distt.- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Parmod Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Binod Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA
ORAL ORDER
2 15-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seek regular bail in Pachmahla P.S.
Case No. 3 of 2025 dated 22-01-2025, registered under
Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109(1), 308(5), 308(4), 352 and 3(5) of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant
was working as a Munshi (clerk) at a brick kiln situated in
Khutaha Dih, owned by Mantu Singh, and was receiving a
monthly remuneration of Rs. 13,000. It is further alleged that
from 01.06.2022, the functioning of the brick kiln were taken
over by petitioner and Sonu Kumar. As both persons were of a
criminal background, the informant resigned from his job.
However, they began pressuring him to resume his duties as a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.122 of 2026(2) dt.15-01-2026
2/4
clerk and through intimidation, compelled him to continue
work. They avoided paying his full salary, providing only partial
payments while compelling him to work. When the informant
demanded his full wages, they gave threats. Upon his refusal to
continue work, petitioner along with co-accused, Sonu Kumar,
Saurav Kumar, Gautam Kumar and Kanhaiya Kumar, all armed
with deadly weapons, entered the informant's house and tried to
forcibly take him outside. When the informant's wife, Heera
Devi, resisted, they abused her and assaulted her with the butt of
a pistol, causing serious injuries to her face, lips, and teeth.
After assaulting, accused Sonu Kumar demanded a ransom of
Rs. 60 lakhs, threatening to kill the family if the amount was not
paid. Before departing, they locked the house and warned that if
the ransom was not paid within a week, the entire family would
be killed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the
present case. It is further submitted that the FIR has been lodged
against five persons, including the petitioner. It is next
submitted that there is no specific allegation against the
petitioner and the allegations, so far as the petitioner is
concerned, are general and omnibus in nature. It is further
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.122 of 2026(2) dt.15-01-2026
3/4
submitted that the petitioner and co-accused Sonu Kumar are
full brothers and with effect from 01.06.2022, the functioning
of the brick kiln was taken over by the petitioner along with his
brother Sonu Kumar. It is also submitted that co-accused Sonu
Kumar @ Sonu Singh has been granted regular bail by this
Court vide order dated 23.04.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No.
21740 of 2025 and co-accused Kanhaiya Kumar @ Rajesh
Kumar has also been granted regular bail by a Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.08.2025 passed in Cr.
Misc. No. 49283 of 2025. Lastly, it is submitted that the
petitioner has been in custody since 09.09.2025 and has 12
criminal cases pending against him.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
has opposed the prayer.
6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of
the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, let
the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of
Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of the learned ACJM- III, Barh, in
connection with Pachmahla P.S. Case No. 3 of 2025, subject to
the following conditions: - (i) that the petitioner shall co-operate
in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.122 of 2026(2) dt.15-01-2026
4/4
date fixed 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) that one of the bailors will be his own
blood relation, preferably father, mother, brother, sister and or
his wife, (iii) that the bailor shall also state on affidavit that he
will inform the court concerned if the petitioner is made accused
in any other case of similar nature after his release in the present
case and thereafter the court below will be at liberty to initiate
the proceeding for cancellation of bail on ground of misuse (iv)
that if the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses,
in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for
cancellation of bail and (v) that the petitioner will appear before
the SHO of concerned PS in the first week of each month till
conclusion of the trial.
7. The application stands allowed.
(Khatim Reza, J)
shyambihari/-
U T
Checking your session…