Patna High Court

Sumit KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 31 January 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY

Holding

The court granted regular bail to the petitioner.

Summary

Sumit Kumar was arrested in connection with a murder case involving sections 190, 191(2)(3), 115(2), 118(1), 303(2) and 103(1) of the Bihar Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution alleged that the victim was assaulted by a group of nine persons, including an armed assailant, and that the petitioner was present at the scene according to the informant’s restatement, although his name does not appear in the FIR. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated, that no overt act was attributed to him, and that he had no prior criminal record. The State opposed the grant of regular bail. After weighing the circumstances, the court ordered the petitioner’s release on regular bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, thereby granting the bail petition.

Issues considered

Whether regular bail can be granted to an accused of murder and arms offences when the FIR does not name him and only his presence is alleged
Whether mere presence at the scene without any overt act justifies denial of bail

Legislation cited

Arms Act — s. 27

Subjects

regular bail
murder
arms act
Bihar Penal Code
criminal procedure
bail petition
presence at scene

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1640 of 2026
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-146 Year-2025 Thana- SONBERSA District- Sitamarhi
                 ======================================================
                 Sumit Kumar S/o Ravindra Mandal Resident of village- Rohua, P.s.-
                 Sonbarsa, District- Sitamarhi                   ... ... Petitioner/s
                                               Versus
                 The State of Bihar Bihar                  ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr.Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr.Shyam Kumar Singh, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   31-01-2026                    Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                                2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case

                   registered for the offence punishable under sections 190, 191 (2)

                   (3), 115 (2), 118 (1), 303 (2) and 103 (1) of the BNS and Section

                   27 of the Arms Act.

                                3.    The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the

                   husband of the deceased had gone with Amit Kumar and

                   Abhishek Baitha towards Sitamarhi. As the informant suspected

                   that some untoward incident might take place, she along with

                   her brother-in-law also proceeded on a bike towards Rohua and

                   upon they reached near village-Rohua, she found that nine

                   persons are present there. It is alleged that Chandan Mahto was

                   armed with ‘dabia’ and assaulted the husband of the informant

                   with the same, as a result of which he succumbed to the injuries.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1640 of 2026(2) dt.31-01-2026
                                                        2/2




                      connection with the present case. It is further submitted that on a

                      bare perusal of the FIR, it is clear that though nine persons have

                      been named in the FIR but the name of this petitioner does not

                      find place there. During the course of investigation, the

                      informant in her restatement stated that the petitioner was also

                      present at the place of occurrence. It is further submitted that the

                      only role attributed to the petitioner in her re-statement is that

                      he was merely present there and no overt act has been alleged

                      against him. Moreover, the petitioner is languishing in judicial

                      custody since 22.08.2025 having no criminal antecedent.

                                   5.     Learned APP appearing for the State has

                      vehemently opposed the prayer of regular bail.

                                   6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances

                      of the case, this court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on

                      bail. The above named petitioner is directed to be released on

                      bail in connection with Sonbarsa P.S. Case No. 146 of 2025 on

                      furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two

                      sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned

                      Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi.


                                             (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Jagdish/-

U       T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…