Patna High Court
Tuntun Kumar @ Tuntun RayversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The Court granted regular bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Tuntun Kumar, sought regular bail in a case involving alleged murder (IPC s.302), common intention (IPC s.34) and illegal possession of arms (Arms Act s.27) arising from a firing incident at a sand mine that resulted in two deaths and injuries. The prosecution’s case was based on the confessional statement of a co‑accused, with no direct evidence linking the petitioner, who was not named in the FIR. The petitioner argued innocence and highlighted that a co‑accused, Majnu Ray, had already been granted bail. The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the charges. Considering the lack of material against the petitioner, the parity with the co‑accused’s bail, and the duration of custody, the Court allowed the bail application, directing the petitioner to furnish a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail despite the grave nature of the offences (IPC s.302, s.34, Arms Act s.27).
- Whether the confessional statement of a co‑accused suffices to justify continued detention of the petitioner.
- Whether parity with bail granted to a co‑accused warrants granting bail to the petitioner.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act, 1959 — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 34
Subjects
- regular bail
- murder
- common intention
- Arms Act
- confessional statement
- serious offences
- bail jurisprudence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14912 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-210 Year-2024 Thana- KOILWAR District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Tuntun Kumar @ Tuntun Ray S/O Binod Ray Village- Chakiya Kotwapatti,
P.S.-Doriganj, District- Saran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Raj Kishor Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 10-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered for
the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian
Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, on 01.05.2024 at 3.30
P.M., the son of the informant, namely Vikash Mahto and some
villagers went to Gadhaiya Sand Mines to work there where
firing took place to establish supremacy on mining of sand in
which some persons got injured by bullets. The informant went
there and found his son and Sudarshan Rai got injured by bullets
in the said firing and died during their treatment. It is further
alleged that the informant and Tulsi Rai, the father of Sudarshan
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14912 of 2026(2) dt.10-04-2026
2/3
Rai, went to hospital and found that the bullets hit 3-4 places on
the bodies of the deceased. They also came to know that at
Kamaluchak Gadhaiya Balu Ghat, the incident of firing took
place between the group of Satyendra Pandey, his son Niraj
Pandey and Guddu Rai and in the said incident, the informant’s
son Vikash Mahto and Sudarshan Rai died due to injuries of
bullet and one Purnmashi Ram, the villager of the informant
also sustained injuries of firearms in the said incident.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no
offence. Petitioner is not named in the F.I.R.. Name of
petitioner transpired during investigation only on the basis of
confessional statement of co-accused person. Save and except
confessional statement, there is no material on record to show
the complicity of this petitioner in the alleged offence. It is
further submitted that co-accused Majnu Ray, having similar
and identical allegations, has already been granted bail by this
Hon’ble Court vide order dated 18.02.2026 passed in Cr. Misc.
No. 9471 of 2026. Moreover, charge-sheet has already been
submitted and petitioner is in custody since 03.11.2025.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for bail to the petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14912 of 2026(2) dt.10-04-2026
3/3
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, general and omnibus nature of accusation, claim based on
parity and period of custody, the prayer for grant of bail to the
petitioner is allowed.
7. Accordingly, let the petitioner, mentioned above, be
enlarged 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 17th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhojpur,
Ara in connection with Koilwar P.S. Case No. 210 of 2024.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U T
Checking your session…