Patna High Court
Munna Kumar @ Munna RaiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- KHATIM REZA
Holding
In the absence of substantive material directly connecting the petitioners to the alleged offence, the court held that bail must be granted.
Summary
The petitioners, Raushan Kumar and Munna Kumar, were charged under sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Indian Arms Act for a shooting incident that resulted in a death. They sought regular bail, contending that they were falsely implicated and that there was no eye‑witness or substantive evidence linking them to the crime, only a co‑accused's confessional statement and call detail records. The prosecution argued that the CDRs and the confessional statement indicated the petitioners' involvement and proximity to the scene. The court examined the case diary and found no direct incriminating material against the petitioners and noted their clean criminal record. Consequently, the court granted bail to both petitioners subject to standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail should be granted to the petitioners under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Indian Arms Act in the absence of substantive evidence linking them to the offence
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-b)(a), 26, 27, 35
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(1), 3(5), 61(2)
Subjects
- bail
- regular bail
- evidence
- eye-witness
- confessional statement
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Indian Arms Act
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3613 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-258 Year-2025 Thana- BHELDI District- Saran
======================================================
Raushan Kumar S/O Brij Ray Resident of Village- Kharidahan Apahar, P.S.-
Bheldi, Dist.- Chapra, Saran, Bihar- 841402
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 3990 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-258 Year-2025 Thana- BHELDI District- Saran
======================================================
Munna Kumar @ Munna Rai son of shri Shatrudhan Ray Resident of Village-
Gopalpur, PS- Bheldi, Dist- chapra at Saran (Bihar)
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 3613 of 2026)
For the Petitioner/s : Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar, Sr. Advocate
Ms. Shashi Priya, Advocate
Mr. Amarshakti, Advocate
Ms. Riya Raj, Advocate
Mr. Arya Achint, Advocate
Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Amitesh Kumar, APP
Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Madhukar Anand, Advocate
Mr. Shubham Kumar Singh, Advocate
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 3990 of 2026)
For the Petitioner/s : Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar, Sr. Advocate
Ms. Shashi Priya, Advocate
Mr. Amarshakti, Advocate
Ms. Riya Raj, Advocate
Mr. Arya Achint, Advocate
Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Amitesh Kumar, APP
Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Madhukar Anand, Advocate
Mr. Shubham Kumar Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA
ORAL ORDER
5 24-02-2026 Since both the cases arise out of the same police
station case, they have been heard together and are being
disposed of by this common order.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3613 of 2026(5) dt.24-02-2026
2/5
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
counsel for the informant and learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State.
3. The petitioners seek regular bail in Bheldi P.S Case
No. 258 of 2025 dated 02-10-2025 registered under Section
61(2), 103(1), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and
Sections 25(1-b)(a), 26, 35 and 27 of the Indian Arms Act.
4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 02.10.2025
at about 12:00 PM, co-accused Golu Kumar Sah and Shravan
Kumar called the informant’s brother, Rahul Pandey to Jalalpur
Chowk on the pretext of settling a dispute, where Munna Kumar
(petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 3990 of 2026), Suraj Kumar, Prem
Kumar, and Roshan Kumar (petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 3613 of
2026) were present. Thereafter, the informant’s brother left in a
four-wheeler along with Suraj Kumar Pandey. About two hours
later, the informant received information that both had been
shot. While going to the place of occurrence, the informant saw
co-accused Golu Kumar Sah and Suraj Kumar fleeing on a
motorcycle. At the scene, the informant’s brother was found
lying in the vehicle in a pool of blood. A country-made pistol,
empty cartridges and the vehicle involved were seized by the
police.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3613 of 2026(5) dt.24-02-2026
3/5
5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits
that the petitioners in both cases are innocent and they have
been falsely implicated due to previous enmity between the
parties. It is further submitted that the informant is not an eye-
witness to the alleged occurrence. According to the informant’s
own statement, after reaching the place of occurrence, he only
saw the co-accused, Golu Kumar Sah and Suraj Kumar fleeing
from the spot on a motorcycle. Learned senior counsel further
submits that apart from the alleged confessional statement of co-
accused Golu Kumar and the Call Detail Records (CDR) of the
petitioners, as mentioned at paragraph no. 48 of the case diary,
there is no other incriminating material available in the case
diary against them. There is no independent eye-witness to the
occurrence. It is next pointed out that the informant as well as
the deceased have several criminal antecedents. Lastly, it is
submitted that the petitioners have no criminal antecedents and
have been in judicial custody since 04.10.2025.
6. Learned counsel for the informant and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State have opposed the
prayer for bail. It is submitted that the materials collected during
the course of investigation indicate that the petitioners were in
continuous contact, on the date of the occurrence as well as prior
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3613 of 2026(5) dt.24-02-2026
4/5
thereto with the other accused persons. It is further submitted
that the tower location of the petitioners along with that of the
other co-accused, places them near the scene of occurrence on
the alleged date of the occurrence. It is also submitted that as per
the confessional statement of co-accused Golu Kumar, petitioner
Munna Kumar (Cr. Misc. No. 3990 of 2026) is alleged to have
supplied the arms used in the commission of the offence.
7. Having considered the submissions of the parties
and on perusal of the case diary, this Court finds that apart from
the confessional statement of co-accused Golu Kumar and the
Call Detail Records of the petitioners, as mentioned at paragraph
no. 48 of the case diary, indicating contact with other accused
persons, there is no substantive material directly connecting the
petitioners with the alleged occurrence. Admittedly, there is no
eye-witness to the occurrence and the informant himself has not
disclosed the name of any petitioner as having fled from the
place of occurrence. It is also relevant to note that the petitioners
have no criminal antecedents and have remained in judicial
custody since 04.10.2025. In the facts and circumstances of the
case, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners in both
cases.
8. Let the petitioners of both the cases be released on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3613 of 2026(5) dt.24-02-2026
5/5
bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand)
each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction
of the learned Judicial Magistrate Saran at Chapra, in connection
with Bheldi P. S. Case No. 258 of 2025, subject to the following
conditions:-(i) that the petitioners shall cooperate in the trial and
shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed 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) that one of the bailors will be their own blood
relation, preferably father, mother, brother, sister and or his wife,
(iii) that the bailors shall also state on affidavit that they will
inform the court concerned if the petitioners are made accused
in any other case of similar nature after their release in the
present case and thereafter the court below will be at liberty to
initiate the proceeding for cancellation of bail on ground of
misuse and, (iv) that 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.
9. Both the applications stand allowed.
(Khatim Reza, J)
shyambihari/-
U T
Checking your session…