Patna High Court
Suraj KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
Bail was denied to the petitioner.
Summary
Suraj Kumar applied for bail in a case originally registered under Section 140(2) of the B.N.S., later amended to include Sections 103, 238, 61(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Sections 25(1‑b)a, 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act. The FIR was filed against an unknown person for the missing son of the informant; during investigation the body was recovered and the petitioner’s name emerged, along with a pistol used in the crime. The petitioner, who was not named in the FIR and claims innocence, has been in custody since 20‑12‑2024 and has no prior criminal record. The State and the informant opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the offences and the recovered weapon. The Court, after considering the gravity of the offences and the material evidence, rejected the bail plea and directed the trial court to expedite the trial within one year.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner given the seriousness of the offences and the material evidence recovered
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- Arms Act
- serious offences
- expedited trial
- custody
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5079 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-877 Year-2024 Thana- SITAMARHI District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Suraj Kumar Son of Mahesh Sah Resident of village - Bhairokothi, P.S.-
Sitamarhi, District - Sitamarhi
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Mishra, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vinod Shanker Modi, APP
For the Informant : Ms. Archana Jha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 16-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the
offence punishable under Section 140(2) of the B.N.S. and later
on, Sections 103, 238, 61(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Sections
25(1-b)a, 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act were added.
3. F.I.R. was registered against unknown for missing
of son of informant. During investigation, on disclosure of one
co-accused person, dead body of son of informant was
recovered.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence.
Petitioner is not named in the F.I.R.. Name of petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5079 of 2026(2) dt.16-02-2026
2/2
transpired in this case during investigation. Moreover, charge-
sheet has already been submitted and petitioner, having no
criminal antecedents, is in custody since 20.12.2024.
5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State and
learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the
prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner and submitted that name
of petitioner transpired during investigation and on the
disclosure made by this petitioner, the pistol which was used in
commission of the offence was recovered.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, gravity of offence and materials that have surfaced during
investigation, the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner is
rejected.
7. However, considering the fact that petitioner is in
custody since 20.12.2024, the learned trial court is directed to
expedite the trial and conclude the same, preferably within a
period of one year from the date of receipt/production of a copy
of this order.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U T
Checking your session…