Patna High Court
Dharmu Kumar @ Dharmpal SharmaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR JHA
Holding
The court held that bail should be granted to the petitioner on the basis of insufficient and remote evidence, clean antecedent, and the circumstances of custody.
Summary
The petitioner, Dharmu Kumar, was accused of assaulting the husband of an informant, leading to the latter's death, under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109(1) and 103(1) of the B.N.S.S. The prosecution's case relied mainly on the informant's wife stating that the deceased had left with the petitioner, with no eyewitness or post‑mortem evidence. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the accusation was baseless, highlighting the lack of substantive material, the six‑month treatment period before death, the absence of a post‑mortem, and the petitioner’s clean criminal record. The State opposed bail, asserting that the deceased was last seen with the petitioner. Considering the vague and remote nature of the allegations, the petitioner’s clean antecedent, the length of custody, and the submission of the charge‑sheet, the court granted bail on a Rs.10,000 bond with two sureties and conditions under Section 480(3) of the B.N.S.S. The bail order also imposed attendance requirements and cancellation provisions for non‑compliance.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate exercise of discretion by the court in granting bail when the evidence against the accused is vague, remote, and largely circumstantial?
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent and the prolonged custody period justify bail despite the seriousness of the alleged offences under the B.N.S.S.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 480(3)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- assault
- homicide
- Section 480(3)
- B.N.S.S.
- clean antecedent
- circumstantial evidence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.41 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-349 Year-2024 Thana- Sahayak Khajanchi District- Purnia
======================================================
Dharmu Kumar @ Dharmpal Sharma S/o Sachhidanand Sharma R/o Mohalla
- Zila School Road, Purnea, P.S - Sahayak Khazanchi, District - Purnea
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate
Mr.Bidhu Ranjan, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Shantanu Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
3 26-02-2026 Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
02. In the present case, the petitioner seeks bail in
connection with Sessions Trial No. 635 of 2025, arising out of
Sahayak Khazanchi P.S. Case No. 349 of 2024 registered for
the alleged offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109(1),
103(1) of BNS.
03. As per prosecution case, the husband of the
informant was called out by the petitioner and he went away
with him. Subsequently, the informant received information
from Ward Councillor that her husband had been admitted in
hospital in injured condition as he had been brought in Umeed
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41 of 2026(3) dt.26-02-2026
2/4
Hospital, Line Bazar, Purnea and his condition was serious.
Subsequently, it came to the notice during investigation that it
was the petitioner, who was perpetrator of assault against the
husband of the informant. Subsequently, the husband of the
informant died while undergoing treatment.
04. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and he
has no hand in the assault over the husband of the informant.
Learned senior counsel further submits that the deceased was
found in injured condition in garage of one Manoj Das from
where he was brought to the hospital and there is no eye witness
who might have seen the petitioner assaulting the deceased.
Moreover, the deceased has remained under treatment for about
six months. The petitioner has been made accused in this case
merely on suspicion. The death occurred in the house of the
deceased and no postmortem was conducted. It has also come
during investigation that there was no cordial relationship
between the deceased and his wife and against the medical
advice the victim was brought to his house. Learned senior
counsel reiterates that there is no substantive material to show
the complicity of the petitioner in the alleged crime except the
statement of the wife of the deceased about the deceased leaving
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41 of 2026(3) dt.26-02-2026
3/4
with the petitioner on 14.12.2024 and thereafter, deceased died
on 24.06.2025. The petitioner has got no criminal antecedent.
The petitioner is in custody since 29.08.2025 and charge sheet
has been submitted.
05. Learned APP opposes the submission made on
behalf of the petitioner. Learned APP submits that the deceased
was last seen in the company of the petitioner.
06. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and
submissions made on behalf of the parties and considering the
vague and remote nature of allegation and the material collected
against the petitioner and also considering the period of custody
of the petitioner, his clean antecedent and submission of charge
sheet, the petitioner above named is directed to be released on
bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Purnea
/concerned Court in connection with Sessions Trial No. 635 of
2025, arising out of Sahayak Khazanchi P.S. Case No. 349 of
2024, subject to the conditions mentioned in Section 480(3) of
B.N.S.S. and also the following conditions :
(i) One of the bailors will be a close relative
of the petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41 of 2026(3) dt.26-02-2026
4/4
(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)
DKS/-
U T
Checking your session…