Patna High Court
Sujeet Kumar @ MonuversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The Court refused to grant bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The Patna High Court considered a petition for bail filed by Sujeet Kumar (Monu) who is in custody for the alleged murder of the informant’s wife under Sections 64, 103 and 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023. The prosecution produced a fingerprint report, a detailed foot‑print comparison and a DNA match linking the petitioner to the deceased. The petitioner argued that he has a clean antecedent and that the FIR was originally lodged against unknown persons, but the forensic evidence was deemed conclusive. Both the State and the informant’s counsel opposed the bail on the ground of the strength of the evidence. After weighing the seriousness of the offence and the material evidence, the Court declined to enlarge bail. Consequently, the petition for bail was refused.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail in view of the fingerprint, foot‑print and DNA evidence linking him to the murder.
- Whether the nature of the offence and the strength of the forensic evidence justify denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S., 2023 — s. 103, 3(5), 64
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- fingerprint evidence
- DNA evidence
- forensic evidence
- criminal procedure
- Bihar High Court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.50136 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-769 Year-2024 Thana- MAHUA District- Vaishali
======================================================
Sujeet Kumar @ Monu S/O Shambhu Sah Resident Of Village- Mahua
Mukundpur, Ward No. 23, P.S- Mahua, Distt.- Vaishali.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shivjee Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
6 16-03-2026 Heard Mr. Shivjee Singh, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned APP for the State and Mr. Sunil
Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant.
2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since
16.08.2024, in connection with Mahua P.S. Case No. 769 of 2024,
F.I.R. dated 14.08.2024 registered for the offence punishable under
Sections 64, 103 and 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023.
3. As per prosecution case, allegation against the
petitioner is that he has killed the wife of the informant.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner has clean antecedent and he has committed no
offence as alleged in the FIR. From a bare perusal of the FIR, it
appears that the FIR has been instituted against unknown persons and
the name of the petitioner has been transpired during investigation.
Thereafter, the petitioner has confessed his guilt in the present
occurrence. The fingerprint received from the place of occurrence
which match with the fingerprint of the petitioner and the same was
confirmed in the report dated 04.02.2025 of the Director, Fingerprint
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50136 of 2025(6) dt.16-03-2026
2/3
Bureau which suggests that the petitioner has committed the present
crime in question. The fingerprint report of the Director, Fingerprint
Bureau, C.I.D., Bihar, Patna is hereinquoted below:-
“izfrosnu
vaxqykad C;wjks] vijk/k vuqla/kku foHkkx] fcgkj] iVukA
vaxqykad C;wjks dk izlax ...FPB/08-F/24… ¼d`i;k lEeu rFkk vU; lHkh i=kpkj esa
bl izlax dk mYys[k djs½
iqfyl v/kh{kd] oS”kkyh --------------------------------------------------------------------------------}kjk izsf’krA
okn la0&egqvk Fkkuk dkaM la[;k&769@24 fnukad&14-08-2024 /kkjk&103¼1½@118¼2½
ch0,u0,l0
With reference to the above mentioned case a comparison was
made between the life photographs of chance foot print marked
‘F1’(blood stained) found at the scene of crime and the specimen
‘Left’ foot print marked ‘S-1’ said to be of accused ‘Monu Kumar’
@ Sujeet Kumar S/o Sambhu Sah.
Following similarities were found:-
(1) Both the foot prints marked ‘F1’ and ‘S-1’ are similar in
physiognomy.
(2) The direction and distribution of the clearly visible toes in both
the prints are almost similar.
(3) The relative positions of Angutha and ‘chichi’ in both the
prints are similar.
(4) Angutha is angular in both the prints.
(5) The shape and size of toes in both the prints are almost
similar.
(6) The ‘Zangiri line’ in both the prints are similar. Their
concavities and convexities are same.
(7) The ‘Pab’, ‘Choti Assi’, ‘Khali Jagah,’ and the ‘Tallies’ in
both the prints are similar.
(8) Geyer’s measurement test applied on the foot prints point to
their similarities.
Sd/-
funs”kd&lg&eq[; jktdh; vaxqykad ijh{kd]
vaxqykad C;qjk]s vijk/k vuqla/kku foHkkx]
fcgkj ljdkj
fuEufyf[kr jktdh; vaxqykad ijh{kdksa us Hkh ijh{k.k fd;k%&
¼1½ Jh vfuy dqekj xqIrk
¼2½ Jh y[ku yky flag
Sd/-
funs”kd&lg&eq[; jktdh; vaxqykad ijh{kd]
vaxqykad C;qjk]s vijk/k vuqla/kku foHkkx]
fcgkj ljdkj
QksVks fo”ks’kK%& 1- eks0 “kguokt vuoj
2- Jh jktdqekj Hkkjrh
Vadd%& 1- vktkn dqekj ”
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50136 of 2025(6) dt.16-03-2026
3/3
The petitioner is in custody since 15.04.2025. Apart from
the aforesaid, DNA report of the petitioner was also matched with the
deceased.
5. Learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel
for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the
petitioner and submits that the petitioner was involved in the present
crime in question which is clear from fingerprint report.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of
the case and nature of allegation against the petitioner as alleged in
the FIR, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in
connection with Mahua P.S. Case No. 769 of 2024, pending in the
court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur.
7. Prayer is refused.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Ranjeet/-
U T
Checking your session…