Patna High Court
Lal Jee @ Lal BabuversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED (DISPOSAL)
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court held that bail could not be granted to Lal Jee due to insufficient evidence and his criminal antecedents, but Sunni Kumar was entitled to bail as the allegations against him were only general and omnibus.
Summary
The petitioners, Lal Jee and Sunni Kumar, were charged with murder under sections 109 and 61(2) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act and section 27 of the Arms Act, later amended to include section 103(1) of the same Act. The prosecution alleged that they killed the informant's brother, relying mainly on a statement recorded in the FIR and confessional statements of co‑accused, while the defence highlighted the absence of eyewitnesses, inconsistencies in the police diary, and the fact that the deceased had a single gunshot wound. The court examined the credibility of the FIR statement, the lack of direct evidence, and the criminal antecedents of petitioner no. 1. It rejected the bail application of Lal Jee, directing him to re‑apply after six months if the trial remains pending, but granted regular bail to Sunni Kumar on a bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties. The order reflects a differentiated approach based on the strength of evidence against each accused.
Issues considered
- What is the adequacy of the evidence to justify regular bail for the accused under sections 109, 61(2), 103(1) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act and section 27 of the Arms Act?
- Does the presence of a criminal antecedent affect the grant of bail to petitioner no. 1?
- Can a bail application be denied on the basis of a general and omnibus allegation against petitioner no. 2?
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 103(1), 109, 61(2)
Subjects
- regular bail
- murder
- arms act
- evidentiary standards
- criminal antecedent
- Indian criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23076 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-385 Year-2024 Thana- MUNGER MUFFASIL District- Munger
======================================================
1. Lal Jee @ Lal Babu S/o Rivan Yadav R/o Mohalla - Sitakund Dih, P.S -
Muffasil, District - Munger
2. Sunni Kumar S/o Late Manoj Yadav R/o Mohalla - Sitakund Dih, P.S -
Muffasil, District - Munger
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shashi Saurabh, Advocate
Ms. Puja Kumari, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Parmanand Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 19-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioners have prayed for regular bail in a
case registered for the offence punishable under sections 109
and 61(2) of BNS and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Later on,
charge sheet has been submitted under Section 103(1) of BNS.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners
along with others have killed the brother of the informant and
that the brother of the informant as lying on a cot in the bathan
of petitioner no. 1.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23076 of 2026(3) dt.19-06-2026
2/4
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that from
perusal of the FIR, it is clear that there is no eye witness of the
occurrence. It has also been submitted that from perusal of the
diary, it transpires that the bathan from where the injured
brother of the informant found, is six kilometers away from the
village. It has also been submitted that there is allegation against
altogether eight accused persons of assaulting the informant’s
brother who succumbed to the injuries. From perusal of the
postmortem report of the deceased, it transpires that he has
received only one entry wound, this goes to show that the death
was due to one gun shot injury. No one has seen the occurrence.
Prosecution has relied mainly on the statement as given in the
FIR that the mother of the co-accused, namely, Bulbul Devi was
saying that his son and others has killed the deceased.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further
submitted that this statement has been incorporated in the FIR
only with a view to provide force to the story of the prosecution.
From perusal of the diary, it is clear that the police has not
recorded the statement of the mother of the co-accused, namely,
Bulbul Devi. During course of investigation, police has recorded
confessional statements of Nikesh Kumar and Sonu Kumar and
they have stated in their confessional statements that petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23076 of 2026(3) dt.19-06-2026
3/4
no. 1 has fired at the head of the deceased whereas there is no
allegation against petitioner no. 2. Learned counsel has also
submitted that in this case, other co-accused persons, namely,
Sonu, Nikesh and Bul Bul Devi have already been granted bail
by learned co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide Cr. Misc. Nos.
7983 of 2025, 28363 of 2025 and 62624 of 2025. Moreover, the
petitioners are languishing in judicial custody since 12.12.2025.
6. Learned APP appearing for the State has
vehemently opposed the prayer of regular bail and has
submitted that the main thrust of allegation is against petitioner
no. 1 and he is also having criminal antecedent of six cases.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of this
case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner no. 1,
namely, Lal Jee @ Lal Babu at this stage, as such, his prayer for
bail stands rejected.
8. However, the petitioner no. 1 may renew his prayer
for bail after six months if the trial is not concluded.
9. So far as the nature of allegation against petitioner
no. 2 is concerned, the same is general and omnibus in nature.
10. As such, this court is inclined to enlarge the
petitioner no. 2 on bail. The above named petitioner no. 2,
namely, Sunni Kumar is directed to be released on bail in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23076 of 2026(3) dt.19-06-2026
4/4
connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No. 385 of 2024 on
furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned
C.J.M., Munger.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Shubham/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.