Patna High Court
Pradeep Kumar @ Pradeep Kumar PaswanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner subject to the conditions imposed under Section 438(2) CrPC and Section 482(2) B.N.S.S.
Summary
The petitioner, Pradeep Kumar Paswan, sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a murder case (Charpokhri P.S. Case No. 256 of 2025) under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner was involved in the death of the informant's husband, but there was no eye‑witness and the investigation revealed a long‑standing dispute between the deceased and other relatives, not the petitioner. The petitioner’s counsel argued that he had no personal motive, the alleged crime scene (a small hut) belonged to him, and he possessed a clean antecedent. The court considered the lack of direct evidence, the existence of alternative suspects, and the petitioner’s clean record, and concluded that anticipatory bail was appropriate. Accordingly, the court granted anticipatory bail with a Rs 10,000 bond, two sureties, and specific conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC read with Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in view of the allegations of murder.
- Whether the seriousness of the alleged offences under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 warrants denial of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent, lack of personal motive and the presence of alternative suspects justify the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482(2)
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(1), 3(5)
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Section 482 B.N.S.S.
- murder allegation
- clean antecedent
- bail conditions
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17792 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-256 Year-2025 Thana- CHARPOKHARI District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Pradeep Kumar @ Pradeep Kumar Paswan, Son of Birj Bihari Paswan,
Resident of Village- Bhallor, P.S.- Charpokhri, District- Arrah (Bhojpur).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jawed Gaffar Khan, Adv.
For the Informant : Mr. Dhanesh Shankar Vidyarthi, Adv.
Mr. Uttam Kumar Tiwary, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
5 21-05-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
learned counsel for the informant and the learned A.P.P. for the
State through virtual mode.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his/her arrest in
connection with Charpokhri P.S. Case No. 256 of 2025
registered for the offence(s) under Section(s) 103(1) and 3(5) of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.).
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17792 of 2026(5) dt.21-05-2026
2/4
alleged that her husband was called by one Dharmendra Paswan
and, thereafter, he went to meet him, but did not return. The
informant has further alleged that when she started looking for
her husband, she found him lying dead near the marayee (small
hut) and his eyes were bleeding and she feared that her husband
has been done to death by the named accused persons including
the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case on mere
suspicion. It has been submitted that there is no eye-witness to
the occurrence and it has not come during the course of
investigation that the petitioner had nothing personal against the
deceased. It has further been submitted that, on the contrary,
during the course of investigation, some of the villagers have
stated that there was a long standing dispute between the
husband of the informant and Sanjay Paswan and Vijay Paswan,
who have carried out the said act along with one Kamlesh
Paswan and his friend, namely, Sagar Paswan. It has been
submitted that during the course of investigation, it has also
come that Sanjay Paswan and Vijay Paswan are relatives of the
deceased and a title suit, bearing No. 88 of 2017, is also pending
between them. It has next been submitted that barring the fact
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17792 of 2026(5) dt.21-05-2026
3/4
that the marayee (small hut), where the occurrence is said to be
occurred, belongs to the petitioner, there is nothing against him
to connect his complicity in the said incident. It has lastly been
submitted that the petitioner has clean antecedent.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant as well as the learned A.P.P. for the State have
vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to
the petitioner and have submitted that there are serious
allegations against him.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, let
the petitioner, above-named, be released on anticipatory bail, in
the event of his/her arrest or surrender before the concerned
Court/successor Court within a period of four weeks from today,
on his/her furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of the concerned Court/successor Court
where the case is pending in connection with Charpokhri P.S.
Case No. 256 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down
under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
read with corresponding Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.S.) as well as subject to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17792 of 2026(5) dt.21-05-2026
4/4
the following conditions :
(i) One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be
his/her close relative and the other shall be a local
resident.
(ii) The petitioner shall remain physically present
before the concerned Court on each and every date of the
trial and shall cooperate in the investigation.
(iii) In case of absence for two consecutive occasions
or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bonds of
the petitioner will be liable to be cancelled by the
concerned Court.
(iv) The concerned Court shall verify the criminal
antecedent of the petitioner and in case, at any stage, it is
found that he/she has concealed his/her criminal
antecedents, the Court concerned shall take necessary
steps for cancellation of his/her bail bond. 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.
7. It is made clear that the observations, if any, made
in this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.
8. The application stands allowed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
Praveen-II/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.