Patna High Court
Ram Kumar @ RamuversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
In the absence of direct evidence linking the petitioner to the offence and given the prolonged pre‑trial detention, the court held that regular bail must be granted.
Summary
The petitioner applied for regular bail in a case registered under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 103 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 27 of the Arms Act for the alleged murder of an informant's husband. The prosecution alleged that eight persons on motorcycles shot the victim, but the petitioner’s name does not appear in the FIR; it emerged only from the confessional statements of co‑accused. No eye‑witness identified the petitioner and no other material linked him to the crime, while a co‑accused in the same case had already been granted bail by a coordinate bench. The petitioner had been in custody since 30‑Nov‑2025 and a chargesheet had been filed. The court, noting the lack of direct evidence, the prolonged pre‑trial detention, and the precedent of bail to a co‑accused, allowed the bail application. The petitioner was released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties of the same amount.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail can be granted when the accused is not named in the FIR and is implicated only through confessional statements of co‑accused.
- Whether the absence of eye‑witness testimony and other material evidence justifies bail.
- Whether the period of pre‑trial custody warrants the grant of bail under the cited provisions.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 103, 190, 191(2), 191(3)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- confessional statement
- FIR
- pre‑trial detention
- arms act
- murder
- evidence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4420 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-235 Year-2024 Thana- DALSINGHSARAI District- Samastipur
======================================================
Ram Narayan Mahto @ Narayan Mahto @ Narayan Jee Son of Late Ram
Lakhan Mahto @ Late Lakhan Mahto Resident (permanent) of village - Sahit,
P.S.- Vidyapatinagar, District - Samastipur Presently residing at village -
Mokhtiyarpur Salkhanni, Police Station - Dalsingsarai, District - Samastipur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Mahendra Pratap, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Bharat Lal, A.P.P.
Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 16-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered for
the offences punishable under Sections 191 ( 2 ), 191 (3) , 190,
and 103 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and 27 of Arms Act.
3. As per prosecution case, informant alleges that on
22.07.2024 while her husband had gone to Civil Court,
Dalsingsarai for some work and as he reached near Dainy
Chowk, in the meantime, 8 persons came there on three
different motorcycles and surrounded the husband of informant.
It is further alleged that all the accused persons fired from their
pistol and shot dead husband of informant. It is alleged that the
aforesaid altercation took place due to previous dispute.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4420 of 2026(2) dt.16-02-2026
2/3
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. The name of the petitioner
transpired during course of investigation in the confessional
statement of other co-accused persons. Informant is neither eye
witness to the alleged occurrence nor she disclosed on what
basis she came to know about the name of accused persons who
were involved in the alleged occurrence. During investigation,
one witness Dhanik Lal Mahto, who claims himself to be eye
witness, has not named this petitioner. Except confessional
statement, there is no other material to show the complicity of
this petitioner in the aforesaid occurrence. Similarly situated co-
accused has already been allowed bail by a co-ordinate bench of
this Court vide order passed in Cr.Mis.No. 52555/2025.
Petitioner is in custody since 30.11.2025. Chargesheet has
already been submitted.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and the informant
oppose bail application.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and period of
custody, the bail application is allowed. Let the above named
petitioner 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 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4420 of 2026(2) dt.16-02-2026
3/3
I, Dalsinghsarai, Samastipur in Dalsingsarai P. S. Case No. 235
of 2024.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashi/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.