Patna High Court
Sunil PaswanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- S B P SINGH
Holding
The court held that bail could not be granted and rejected the petitioners' application.
Summary
The High Court heard two bail applications arising from the same murder case (PS Case No. 107 of 2025) where the accused were charged under Sections 103(1) and 238 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that Sunita Devi, motivated by a marriage proposal involving her daughter, conspired with others to lure the victim, Bambam Paswan, and murder him. The petitioners argued that the case was based solely on a confessional statement of a co‑accused and was therefore frivolous. The court examined the case diary, which detailed a pre‑planned conspiracy, multiple injuries on the dead body, and corroborative statements of other witnesses. Considering the seriousness of the offence, the pre‑meditated nature of the crime and the material on record, the court refused to grant regular bail to the petitioners.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused under Sections 103(1) and 238 of the Indian Penal Code in view of the alleged pre‑meditated murder and conspiracy.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 103(1), 238
Subjects
- bail
- criminal conspiracy
- murder
- premeditation
- Section 103(1) IPC
- Section 238 IPC
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 5008 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-107 Year-2025 Thana- MOHANPUR District- Jamui
======================================================
1. Sunil Paswan Son of Late Suraj Paswan R/o Village - Bishanpur, P.S -
Mohanpur(Laxmipur), District - Jamui.
2. Akhilesh Kumar @ Akhilesh Paswan @ Azad Paswan Son of Sunil Paswan
R/o Village - Bishanpur, P.S - Mohanpur(Laxmipur), District - Jamui.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 5334 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-107 Year-2025 Thana- MOHANPUR District- Jamui
======================================================
Sunita Devi W/o Sikandar Paswan R/o Village - Bishanpur, P.S.- Mohanpur,
(Laxmipur), District – Jamui
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 5008 of 2026)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Pramod Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Abhay Kumar
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 5334 of 2026)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Prakash Mahto
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Madan Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH
ORAL ORDER
3 01-04-2026 Both Cr. Misc. applications have arisen out of the
same occurrence and as such they have been heard together and
are being disposed of by passing this common order.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned APP for the State.
3. The petitioners have preferred this application for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 5008 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026
2/4
grant of regular bail in connection with Mohanpur P.S. Case No.
107 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 103(1) and 238 of the BNS.
4. As per the prosecution case, the informant, who is a
police official, has stated that on 09.09.2025 at about 09:50 AM,
he received information that a dead body was lying near
Lakshmipur Main Road, partially covered with dry leaves, with
only the head visible. Upon reaching the place of occurrence, he
found the same to be true, and accordingly, the F.I.R. was
instituted against unknown.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this
case. The allegation against the petitioners is purely false,
concocted and frivolous one. The petitioners have been
implicated in the present case only on the basis of the
confessional statement of co-accused Sunita Devi, wherein she
has stated that, on account of her daughter’s alleged extra-
marital affair with deceased, she, along with other family
members, committed the murder of Bambam Paswan, whereas
the same has no evidentiary value in the eye of law. The
petitioners are in custody since 12.10.2025.
6. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 5008 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026
3/4
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners.
7. It is stated in paragraph 27 of the case diary that on
08.09.2025, the deceased, Bambam Paswan, informed her father
over a phone call that Sunita Devi had contacted her on her
mobile phone and conveyed that she intended to marry her
daughter, Nisha Kumari, to him. Further, in para nos. 28, 29, 64,
65, and 66 the witnesses have stated that the deceased Bambam
Paswan was in love affair with the daughter (Nisha Kumari) of
the petitioner (Sunita Devi). On 08.09.2025, Sunita Devi, along
with other co-accused persons, in furtherance of a criminal
conspiracy, allegedly called the deceased on the pretext of
solemnizing his marriage with Nisha Kumari, and on the
following day, i.e., 09.09.2025, the dead body of Bambam
Paswan was recovered bearing multiple injuries. From perusal
of paragraph 38 of the case diary, it further appears that accused
Sunita Kumari has confessed her guilt in connection with the
alleged occurrence, disclosing the involvement of the accused
persons in the commission of the offence.
8. Considering the materials available on record, this
Court finds that there are specific allegations of a well-planned
conspiracy wherein the deceased was called by the petitioner
(Sunita Devi) under false pretext of marriage and subsequently
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 5008 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026
4/4
he was killed by the accused persons. The manner in which the
offence is alleged to have been committed reflects premeditation
and criminal conspiracy with oblique motive.
9. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the
accusation, the manner of commission of the offence, the
materials collected during investigation, and the seriousness of
the allegations, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the
petitioners on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the
petitioners is hereby rejected.
(S. B. Pd. Singh, J)
Ankit Kumar/-
U T
Checking your session…