Patna High Court
Jaylal Paswan @ Jailal PaswanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR JHA
Holding
The court granted bail to the petitioner with conditions.
Summary
Jaylal Paswan was charged under IPC sections 341, 447, 323, 302/34 for allegedly assaulting and causing the death of an informant's father. He had been in custody since August 2024 and his earlier bail application was denied. The petitioner argued that the informant, who claimed to be an eyewitness, gave a deposition that did not implicate him, and that other prosecution witnesses also failed to support the case, creating a fresh ground for bail. The State opposed the bail, but the court noted the lack of reliable eyewitness testimony and the delay in trial completion. Considering these factors, the court granted bail on a Rs.10,000 bond with two sureties and imposed conditions under Section 480(3) of the BNSS.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted in a murder case when the trial is ongoing and there is a lack of credible eyewitness testimony.
- Whether the petitioner’s continued custody is justified given the delay in trial and the informant’s deposition absolving the petitioner.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Security Act — s. 480(3)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 323, 34, 341, 447
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- Indian Penal Code
- trial delay
- eyewitness testimony
- informant credibility
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32280 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-195 Year-2024 Thana- MOTIPUR District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Jaylal Paswan @ Jailal Paswan, S/O Late Bhuneshwar Paswan @ Late
Bhuvneshwar Paswan, R/O Village - Chakchuhar, P.S- Motipur, District -
Muzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ravi Ranjan, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Satya Nand Shukla, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
2 08-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. In the present case, the petitioner seeks bail in
connection with Sessions Trial No. 589/2025, arising out of
Motipur P.S. Case No. 195 of 2024, registered for the alleged
offences under Sections 341, 447, 323, 302/34 of the Indian
Penal Code.
3. As per prosecution case, the petitioner and other co-
accused persons assaulted the father of the informant with iron
rod, lathi and danda when he asked the petitioner and others to
remove the earth material from his doors. Subsequently, the
father of the informant lost his life in the assault and he was
declared brought dead when taken to hospital. The assailants
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32280 of 2026(2) dt.08-05-2026
2/4
also tried to strangulate the informant.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
this is the second attempt of the petitioner to seek bail from this
Court as his earlier prayer for bail was rejected by this Court
vide order dated 14.02.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 8496 of
2025. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is
in custody since 19.08.2024 and altogether ten prosecution
witnesses have been examined including the informant as well
as two investigating officers. However, six witnesses still
remain to be examined and there is no possibility of conclusion
of trial in near future. The learned counsel further submits that
there is no eye witness to the occurrence and the informant
claimed himself to be an eye witness, but when his deposition
was recorded he did not support the prosecution case to the
extent that the petitioner and other co-accused persons were
involved in assaulting his father. Rather he deposed that on
hearing noise, he came out of his house and found his father
lying on floor and he also fell down and received injuries while
trying to pull up his father. The informant also deposed that he
did not prepare the written report on which the FIR has been
registered and merely put his signature over there and he could
not read the written report. Other witnesses examined by the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32280 of 2026(2) dt.08-05-2026
3/4
prosecution have also not supported the prosecution case about
the involvement of the petitioner. One of the witnesses on the
written report namely Dinesh Paswan, has also not supported
the prosecution case. Therefore, considering this fresh ground,
prayer for bail of the petitioner may favourably be considered.
5. The learned APP for the State vehemently opposes
the submission made on behalf of the petitioner.
6. Normally, this Court would not like to take a
different view in a subsequent consideration of prayer for bail
unless any new fact comes to the knowledge of the Court and
more so when the trial is in progress. However, considering the
deposition of the informant as well as other witnesses in the
case absolving the petitioner and further considering the delay
in conclusion of trial, the prayer of the petitioner for grant of
bail could be considered.
7. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to 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
learned Additional Sessions Judge-5th, Muzaffarpur/court
concerned, in connection with Sessions Trial No. 195/2024,
arising out of Motipur P.S. Case No. 195 of 2024, subject to the
conditions mentioned in Section 480 (3) of BNSS and also the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32280 of 2026(2) dt.08-05-2026
4/4
following conditions :
(i) One of the bailors will be a close relative
of the petitioner.
(ii) The petitioner will remain present on
each and every date fixed by the court
below.
(iii) In case of absence on three consecutive
dates or in violation of the terms of the bail,
the bail bond of the petitioner will be liable
to be cancelled by the court concerned.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
V.K.Pandey/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.