Patna High Court
Sumit Kumar @ Subhit Kumar @ Subhit YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The court granted bail because there was no specific allegation of firing against the petitioner and he possessed a clean antecedent, subject to prescribed conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Sumit Kumar, was arrested in connection with a case involving assault on an informant's family and the fatal shooting of the informant's brother. He is charged under several sections of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The petitioner’s counsel argued that he has a clean antecedent and that the FIR contains no specific allegation of firing against him, only against a co‑accused. The prosecution opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the offences. The court, noting the absence of a specific charge of firing against the petitioner and his clean record, granted bail on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions of cooperation, non‑tampering with evidence, and verification of antecedents.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner accused of offences under the BNS Act, 2023 and the Arms Act in the absence of a specific allegation of firing against him.
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent warrants bail despite the seriousness of the alleged offences.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 103(1), 109(1), 115(2), 117, 126(2), 3(5)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act
- Arms Act
- clean antecedent
- conditions of bail
- assault
- murder
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24953 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-76 Year-2025 Thana- KIUL District- Lakhisarai
======================================================
Sumit Kumar @ Subhit Kumar @ Subhit Yadav S/o- Umesh Yadav R/v-
Lakhochak Ps- Kiul Dist- Lakhisarai ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rizwanul Haque, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 22-04-2026 Heard Mr. Rizwanul Haque, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the informant
and Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since
16.12.2025 in connection with Kiul P.S. Case No. 76 of 2025,
F.I.R. dated 09.09.2025 for the offences punishable under
Sections 126(2), 115(2), 117, 109(1), 103(1) and 3(5) of the
BNS, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. According to prosecution case, due to previous
dispute this petitioner along with other accused persons
assaulted the informant's wife and brother and co-accused
Umesh Yadav fired upon the informant's brother resulting into
his death.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24953 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
2/3
petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been
implicated in the present case. Although the petitioner is named
in the FIR but from perusal of the FIR it appears that the FIR is
two parts. According to part one, there is general and omnibus
allegation against all the accused persons including the
petitioner and according to part two, there is specific allegation
of firing attributed against the co-accused Umesh Yadav that he
has fired upon the head of the brother of the informant namely,
Chhotu Kumar and subsequently he died. He further submits
that there is no specific allegation of firing against this
petitioner. He further submits that the police after investigation
submitted the charge sheet against the petitioner. The petitioner
is in custody since 16.12.2025.
5. The learned counsel for the informant as well as
learned Additional Public Prosecutor have vehemently opposed
the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
that the petitioner has clean antecedent and there is no specific
allegation of firing against this petitioner, let the petitioner,
above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.
10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of the learned CJM, Luckhisarai in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24953 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
3/3
connection with Kiul P.S. Case No. 76 of 2025, subject to the
following conditions:-
i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and
on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to
move for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at
any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. 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.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Vanisha/-
U T
Checking your session…