Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Rohit Kumar @ DullaversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL REJECTED

Holding

Bail was denied as the court found the accusation specific, the offence grave, and the petitioner had a criminal antecedent.

Summary

The petitioner, Rohit Kumar, applied for bail in a case under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the B.N.S., alleging that he and a co‑accused punched the informant’s son, causing his death. The prosecution argued that the petitioner was specifically named in the FIR, the accusation was direct, the offence was grave, and the petitioner had a prior criminal antecedent. The petitioner contended he was innocent, there were no eye‑witnesses, and he had been in custody since 2 August 2025. The court examined the seriousness of the charge, the specificity of the accusation, and the petitioner’s antecedent, and concluded that bail could not be granted. However, the court directed the trial court to expedite the trial and complete it within one year of the order.

Issues considered

  • Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner in a case punishable under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the B.N.S. given the gravity of the offence and the petitioner’s criminal antecedent
  • Whether the absence of an eye‑witness and the petitioner’s claim of innocence affect the bail decision

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • criminal procedure
  • Sections 103(1) B.N.S.
  • Section 3(5) B.N.S.
  • homicide
  • assault
  • criminal antecedent
  • trial expediting

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17262 of 2026
                         Arising Out of PS. Case No.-98 Year-2025 Thana- BHELDI District- Saran
                 ======================================================
                 Rohit Kumar @ Dulla Son of Tigan Manjhi @ Saroj Manjhi Resident of
                 Village - Raipura, P.S.- Bheldi, District - Saran, Bihar.
                                                                                  ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                           ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner      :        Ms. Shweta Anand, Advocate
                 For the State           :        Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, APP
                 For the Informant       :        Mr. Chandra Mohan Jha, Advocate
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   24-04-2026                  Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

                   A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant.

                                2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the

                   offence punishable under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the

                   B.N.S..

                                3. As per prosecution case, it is alleged that this

                   petitioner, along with co-accused Rahul Kumar, punched in the

                   stomach of the informant’s son as a result of which, he died

                   during course of treatment.

                                4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner

                   that petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence.

                   There is no direct eye witness to the alleged occurrence.

                   Petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case with ulterior

                   motive. Charge-sheet has already been submitted and petitioner

                   is in custody since 02.08.2025.
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17262 of 2026(2) dt.24-04-2026
                                                         2/2




                                    5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State and

                       learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the

                       prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner and submitted that

                       petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and there is specific accusation

                       that he, along with co-accused Rahul Kumar, punched in the

                       stomach of son of informant due to which he died during course

                       of treatment. Petitioner has got one criminal antecedent.

                                    6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

                       case, specific and direct nature of accusation, gravity of offence

                       and criminal antecedent of the petitioner, the prayer for grant

                       bail of to the petitioner is rejected.

                                    7. However, considering the fact that petitioner is in

                       custody since 02.08.2025, the learned trial court is directed to

                       expedite the trial and conclude the same, preferably within a

                       period of one year from the date of receipt/production of a copy

                       of this order.



                                             (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U      T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.