Patna High Court
Sadhu @ Pradeep Paswan @ Manjeet KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PRAVEEN KUMAR
Holding
The Court granted regular bail, holding that the confessional statement of the co‑accused is inadmissible and the lack of eyewitness evidence and clean record warrant release on bail.
Summary
The petitioners, Sadhu @ Pradeep Paswan @ Manjeet Kumar and Murad Alam, were arrested in connection with a murder case (Balthar P.S. Case No. 82 of 2025) under Sections 103(1) and 61(2) of the B.N.S. They sought regular bail, arguing that there was no eyewitness to the alleged killing and that their names were derived solely from a confessional statement of co‑accused Rohit Kumar, which is inadmissible under Section 23 of the B.S.A. The petitioners also highlighted their clean criminal record and the fact that the offence is non‑compoundable. The State opposed the bail application. The Court, after considering the lack of direct evidence and the inadmissibility of the confessional statement, ordered that the petitioners be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs 10,000 each with two sureties, and allowed the application.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail can be granted to the accused in a murder case where the primary evidence against them is a confessional statement of a co‑accused.
- Whether the confessional statement of the co‑accused is admissible under Section 23 of the B.S.A.
- Whether the absence of eyewitness testimony and the petitioners' clean record justify bail.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- regular bail
- murder
- confessional statement
- Section 23
- inadmissible evidence
- non‑compoundable offence
- clean criminal record
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4018 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-82 Year-2025 Thana- BALTHAR District- West Champaran
======================================================
1. Sadhu @ Pradeep Paswan @ Manjeet Kumar son of Ramji Paswan Resident
of Village- Purushottampur, Ward No.12, Gauripur, Police Station
-Purushottampur, District -West Champaran
2. Murad Alam Son of Late Bismillah Miyan Resident of Village-
Purushottampur, Ward No.12, Gauripur, Police Station -Purushottampur,
District -West Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pratik, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 06-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioners have preferred this application for
grant of regular bail in connection with Balthar P.S. Case No. 82
of 2025 dated 12.07.2025 registered for the offences punishable
under Sections 103(1) and 61(2) of B.N.S.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant alleged
that her younger son was a driver of Shivdani bus. When his bus
caught malfunctioned, he went to his matrimonial home to meet
his wife. It is alleged that on 06.07.2025 at about 07:00 P.M.,
her son received a telephonic call and thereafter he left the
house telling his wife that he is going to Purushottampur and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4018 of 2026(3) dt.06-04-2026
2/3
would return by 9 O’clock, but he did not return. When his wife
called him, firstly the phone came busy and thereafter the phone
became switched off. It is further alleged that on 07.07.2025 in
the morning at around 7 O’clock, a call was received that a dead
body of her son was lying near Bhawra Dhala. Thereafter, the
informant and her family members went to that place and saw
the dead body. Thereafter, the dead body was taken to post-
mortem, by seeing the dead body it appeared that her son has
been inflicted with several knife blows on face, neck and his
forelimbs were also fractured.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted
that there is no eye-witness to the alleged occurrence of murder
and there are no circumstances to connect the petitioners in the
alleged occurrence. It has been further submitted that the name
of the petitioners have transpired on the basis of confessional
statement of co-accused Rohit Kumar before police while in
police custody and the same is not admissible under Section 23
B.S.A. Moreover, the petitioners are in custody since
02.10.2025 having no criminal antecedent. It has further been
submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed and there is no
allegation of tampering, although a compromise petition was
filed in the court below upon wrong advice and the offence is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4018 of 2026(3) dt.06-04-2026
3/3
not compoundable in nature. Moreover, the compromise petition
was not filed at the initial stage of investigation.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently
opposed the bail petition of the petitioners.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case and nature of materials collected during the course of
investigation against the petitioners, the petitioners above-
named, are directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-
bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned
Court concerned, West Champaran, Bettiah, in connection with
Balthar P.S. Case No. 82 of 2025.
7. The application stands allowed.
(Praveen Kumar, J)
shivam/-
U T
Checking your session…