Patna High Court
Sandeep Kumar @ SaluversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The Court held that bail may be granted to the accused, subject to a cash bond and stringent conditions, as the circumstances did not preclude release pending trial.
Summary
The petitioners, Shaurabh Kumar and Sandeep Kumar, were arrested in connection with a murder alleged under Sections 118(1), 109, 103(1), 303(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act. They claim they were falsely implicated and argue that the FIR is ambiguous about who fired the fatal shots. The prosecution opposed bail, relying on a confessional statement of a co‑accused, recovery of the pistol used, and the petitioners’ prior criminal antecedents. The Court examined the seriousness of the offence, the evidence, and the petitioners’ antecedents, and decided to grant bail subject to a cash bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties and strict conditions of cooperation, presence, and non‑tampering with evidence. The order also directed verification of the petitioners’ criminal records and provided for cancellation of bail on breach of conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to accused persons charged with murder and illegal possession of a firearm under the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita and the Arms Act despite serious allegations and prior criminal antecedents.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(1), 109, 118(1), 303(2), 3(5)
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- illegal firearm
- Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita
- Arms Act
- criminal antecedent
- trial cooperation
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10569 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-288 Year-2025 Thana- NAUBATPUR District- Patna
======================================================
Shaurabh Kumar @ Alter @ Saurav Kumar Son of Late Satyendra Singh
Resident of Village- Chiroura, P.S.- Naubatpur, District- Patna (Bihar)
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 13662 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-288 Year-2025 Thana- NAUBATPUR District- Patna
======================================================
Sandeep Kumar @ Salu S/O Late Manoj Prasad @ Manoj Kumar @ Manoj
Sharan R/O Village- Chiroura, P.S- Naubatpur, Distt.- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 10569 of 2026)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar Pathak, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dilip Kumar No. 1, APP
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 13662 of 2026)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Hansraj, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anil Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 10-04-2026 Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for
the petitioner, Mr. Dilip Kumar No. 1, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State (In Cr. Misc. No. 10569 of 2026) and
Mr. Hansraj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anil
Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State (In
Cr. Misc. No. 13662 of 2026).
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10569 of 2026(3) dt.10-04-2026
2/4
2. Petitioners seeks bail in connection with Naubatpur
P.S. Case No. 288 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 15.05.2025 for the
offences punishable under Sections 118(1), 109, 103(1), 303(2),
3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and 27 of Arms Act.
3. Allegation against the petitioners is that they
alongwith other accused persons have murdered the informant’s
son Prashant Kumar by opening fire from an illegal fire arm
(Pistol).
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners are innocent and they falsely been implicated in the
present case. Although the petitioners are named in the FIR and
there is specific allegation against them that they have fired
upon the victim but from bare perusal of the FIR it appears that
FIR is in two parts, in first part specific allegation of firing is
attributed against the petitioners and other co-accused persons
and in second part allegation against firing is attributed against
co-accused person, namely, Chandan Kumar. Although the
deceased had received six bullet injuries but it is not clear that
whose bullet injury was found on the person of the deceased and
co-accused, person, namely, Ankit Kumar has been granted the
privilege of bail by this Court vide order dated 17.01.2026 in
Cr. Misc. No. 83741 of 2025 and the petitioner, namely,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10569 of 2026(3) dt.10-04-2026
3/4
Shaurabh Kumar @ Alter @ Saurav Kumar is in custody since
06.08.2025 and petitioner, namely, Sandeep Kumar @ Salu is in
custody since 16.05.2025.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and
submits that victim had supported the case of the prosecution
and on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused,
namely, Sandeep Kumar and Ankit Kumar, one country made
pistol which was used in the present crime in question has been
recovered from the place of occurrence and apart from that the
said Ankit Kumar has clean antecedent. He further submits that
both the petitioners carries three criminal antecedents other than
the present one.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
let the petitioners, 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 the learned
A.C.J.M.-VI, Danapur, Patna in connection with Naubatpur P.S.
Case No. 288 of 2025, subject to the following conditions:-
i. Petitioners 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10569 of 2026(3) dt.10-04-2026
4/4
on their absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, their bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
ii. If the petitioners tamper with the evidence or the
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 petitioners and in case at
any stage it is found that the petitioners have concealed their
criminal antecedents, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioners. 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.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Suruchi/-
U T
Checking your session…