Patna High Court
Ajit KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The Court held that the FIR was lodged after the post‑mortem and the evidence did not clearly identify the petitioner as the shooter, therefore bail was warranted subject to conditions.
Summary
Ajit Kumar was arrested in connection with a murder case (Sections 302/34 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act) after a FIR was lodged on 12‑12‑2022, although the post‑mortem of the victim had already been completed earlier that day. The petitioner contended that the FIR was fabricated and that the timing indicated an attempt to falsely implicate him. The State argued that the medical report and the informant’s statement supported the charges. The Court examined the discrepancy in timing, the lack of clear evidence linking the petitioner to the shooting, and the fact that the petitioner was already on bail in two other cases. Concluding that the prosecution had not established a strong case to deny bail, the Court ordered bail with a bond of Rs.10,000 and several conditions, including cooperation with the trial and non‑tampering with evidence.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a murder case under Sections 302/34 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act when the FIR was lodged after the post‑mortem and may be fabricated.
- Whether the timing of the FIR and the post‑mortem report affect the assessment of the petitioner's culpability for bail purposes.
- Whether the petitioner's existing cases and bail status in those matters influence the decision to grant bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 34
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- fabricated FIR
- post‑mortem
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 34 IPC
- Arms Act
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44406 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-181 Year-2022 Thana- KADIRGANJ District- Patna
======================================================
Ajit Kumar S/O- Sudama Prasad R/O Village- Balapur @ Sanda Purbi, P.S.-
Dhanarua, District-Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Eashita Raj, Advocate
: Ms.Priyanka Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Shyam Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 16-03-2026 Heard Ms. Eashita Raj, learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and Mr.Shyam
Kumar Singh, learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since
03.01.2025 in connection with Kadirganj P.S. Case No. 181 of
2022, F.I.R. dated 12.12.2022 registered for the offence
punishable under Sections 302/34 of IPC and Section 27 of
Arms Act.
3. Allegation against the petitioner is that he fired
upon the son of the informant and bullet hit at his chest.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the allegation as alleged in the FIR is false and
fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44406 of 2025(4) dt.16-03-2026
2/4
alleged in the FIR. Although the petitioner is named in the FIR
and there is specific allegation against him that he alongwith
other co-accused persons have fired upon the son of the
informant. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that
the date of occurrence as alleged in the FIR is 12.12.2022 at
9.00 AM and the present FIR has been instituted on 12.12.2022
at 8.45 PM but the postmortem of the victim was conducted on
12.12.2022 at 3.50 PM which suggests that after the
postmortem, the present FIR has been instituted afterthought
only to falsely implicate the petitioner in the present case, when
the informant came to know about the cause of death he has
lodged the present case against the petitioner and other co-
accused persons.
5. Learned counsel for the informant and learned APP
for the State have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the
petitioner and submits that although the postmortem was
conducted before lodging the FIR but the allegation as alleged
in the FIR which is supported by the medical evidence
(postmortem report) apart from the aforesaid, the Fardbeyan of
the informant was recorded on 12.12.2022 at 01.20 PM but the
reason best known to the prosecution he has lodged the present
FIR on 12.12.2022 at 08.45 PM. Further submits that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44406 of 2025(4) dt.16-03-2026
3/4
petitioner carries two more cases other than the present one but
he fairly submits that the petitioner is on bail in both the cases,
as mentioned in para-3 of the supplementary affidavit.
6. Considering the aforesaid fact, the FIR has been
instituted after the postmortem and apart from the aforesaid, as
per allegation in the FIR a number of accused persons have
fired upon the victim but the postmortem report reveals that
only one injury was found on the person of the deceased which
suggests that who has fired upon the victim is not clear, let the
petitioner, 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 learned A.S.J.-I,
Masaurhi, Patna in connection with Kadirganj P.S. Case No.
181 of 2022, with the following conditions:-
(I) Petitioner 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 his/her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, his/her bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
(II) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move
for cancellation of bail.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44406 of 2025(4) dt.16-03-2026
4/4
(III) And, further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at
any stage, it is found that the petitioner has concealed his
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. 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)
Nitesh/-
U T
Checking your session…