Patna High Court
Shatrudhan Singh @ Karu Singh @ Shatrudhan KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The Court granted regular bail to the petitioners with specified conditions.
Summary
The petitioners, Shatrudhan Singh and Madhav Kashyap, applied for regular bail in a murder case (P.S. Case No. 60 of 2025) involving alleged offences under Sections 103(1), 61(2)(a), 3(5) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act. They contended that the FIR was lodged after the post‑mortem report, suggesting a false implication, and that no investigative material linked them to the crime. The prosecution opposed bail, highlighting multiple prior criminal antecedents of the petitioners, though noting they were already on bail in other matters. The Court examined the delay in filing the FIR, the lack of incriminating evidence, and the precedent of bail granted to co‑accused. It ordered that bail be granted on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions of cooperation, appearance, non‑tampering with evidence, and verification of criminal antecedents. The bail order was issued without waiting for antecedent verification.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail should be granted to the accused despite multiple prior criminal antecedents.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the timing of the post‑mortem report indicate false implication warranting bail.
- Whether the conditions imposed under Sections 103(1), 61(2)(a), 3(5) of the B.N.S. 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act justify denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 — s. 103(1), 3(5), 61(2)(a)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal antecedents
- FIR delay
- false implication
- Arms Act
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act
- high court
- anticipatory bail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34896 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-60 Year-2025 Thana- PIPRIYA District- Lakhisarai
======================================================
Shatrudhan Singh @ Karu Singh @ Shatrudhan Kumar Son of Late Ram
Naresh Sharma @ Naresh Singh Resident of Village- Walipur, P.S.- Pipariya,
District- Lakhisarai ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 36648 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-60 Year-2025 Thana- PIPRIYA District- Lakhisarai
======================================================
Madhav Kashyap @ Madhav Kumar Son of Satrudhan Singh @ Karu Singh
Resident of village - Walipur, P.S.- Pipariya, District - Lakhisarai.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 34896 of 2026)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhay Shanker Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anuj Kumar Shrivastava, APP
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 36648 of 2026)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhay Shanker Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anuj Kumar Shrivastava, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 08-07-2026 Heard Mr. Abhay Shanker Singh, learned counsel for
the petitioners as well as Mr. Anuj Kumar Shrivastava, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioners seek bail in connection with Pipariya P.S.
Case No. 60 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 19.06.2025 for the offences
punishable under Sections 103 (1), 61 (2)(a), 3 (5) of the B.N.S.
2023 and sections 27 of the Arms act.
3. According to prosecution case, informant alleged that,
on 17.06.2025, when husband of the informant was returning,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34896 of 2026(3) dt.08-07-2026
2/4
accused persons along with unknown came and killed him by
bullet shot.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners are innocent and they falsely been implicated in the
present case. He further submits that it appears from the FIR that
date of occurrence is of 17.06.2025 at 11.30 P.M but the FIR was
instituted on 19.06.2025 at 19.40 P.M, after thought only to falsely
implicated the petitioners. It is further submitted that a bare
perusal of the inquest report reveals that the same was prepared on
18.06.2025 at 2:30 A.M.; however, it does not disclose the names
of any accused persons. Moreover, the post-mortem examination
was also conducted on 18.06.2025, whereas the present FIR came
to be instituted only thereafter. This clearly suggests that the FIR
was lodged after the post-mortem report had become available
and, after due deliberation, the petitioners and other accused
persons were falsely implicated in the present case. He next
submits that nothing has come during investigation which suggest
the involvement of the petitioners in the present occurrence and
similarly situated co-accused persons, namely, Uma Shankar
Sharma @Mukesh Singh and Chandan Kumar @ Titu Dhamak
have been granted the privilege of bail by this Court vide order
dated 19.03.2026 in Cr. Misc. No. 68547 of 2025 and Cr. Misc.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34896 of 2026(3) dt.08-07-2026
3/4
No. 87503 of 2025 and other co-accused persons, namely, Shivam
Bhardwaj @ Golu Babu and Vikash Bharadwaj @ Vikas
Bharadwaj have been granted the privilege of anticipatory bail by
a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.09.2025 and
12.02.2026 in Cr. Misc. No. 53025 of 2025 and Cr. Misc.No.
69568 of 2025. The police after investigation submitted charge-
sheet against the petitioners and the petitioner, namely,Shatrudhan
Singh @ Karu Singh @ Shatrudhan Kumar is in custody since
25.11.2025 and petitioner, namely, Madhav Kashyap @ Madhav
Kumar is in custody since 09.01.2026.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners and
submits that petitioner, namely,Shatrudhan Singh @ Karu Singh
@ Shatrudhan Kumar carries four five criminal antecedents and
petitioner,namely, Madhav Kashyap @ Madhav Kumar carries six
criminal antecedents other than the present one but fairly submits
that both the petitioners are on bail in the pending matters.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
let the petitioners, 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 C.J.M.,
Lakhisarai/concerned J.M. 1st Class, Lakhisarai in connection
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34896 of 2026(3) dt.08-07-2026
4/4
with Pipariya P.S. Case No. 60 of 2025,, subject to the following
conditions:-
i. Petitioners 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 their absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, their bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
ii. If the petitioners tamper 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 petitioners and in case at any
stage it is found that the petitioners have concealed their criminal
antecedents, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail
bond of the petitioners. 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)
Suruchi/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.