Patna High Court
Kundan KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The court upheld its earlier order and denied bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Kundan Kumar, was charged under Sections 302/34 of the IPC and Sections 25(1‑Ba), 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act for allegedly firing indiscriminately and causing a death. He applied for regular bail for the second time after an earlier bail denial on 18‑09‑2024. The court noted that the trial is ongoing, four of six witnesses have already been examined, and the petitioner has prior criminal antecedents. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in X v. State of Rajasthan (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3539), the court refused to revisit its earlier order and dismissed the bail application. The Superintendent of Police was directed to ensure the presence of witnesses in the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail should be granted to an accused charged with murder and multiple offences under the Arms Act, considering the seriousness of the offence, prior criminal antecedents, and the status of the trial.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1‑Ba), 26, 27, 35
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 34
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- IPC
- Arms Act
- criminal antecedents
- trial proceedings
- witness protection
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.60863 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-83 Year-2024 Thana- SURSAND District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Kundan Kumar Son of Kishori Singh R/O Vill.- Adkhani, P.s.- Parihar, Dist.-
Sitamarhi.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. P.N. Shahi, Senior Advocate
Mr. Amit Anand, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Jagdhar Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 10-02-2026 Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. This is the second attempt on behalf of the
petitioner for grant of regular bail in connection with Sursand
P.S. Case No. 83 of 2024 registered for the offence under
sections 302/34 of the I.P.C. read with Sections 25(1-B)a, 26, 27
and 35 of the Arms Act.
3. Earlier, the bail of the petitioner was rejected
by this Court vide order dated 18.09.2024 passed in Criminal
Miscellaneous No.36660 of 2024 with Criminal Miscellaneous
No.37974 of 2024. The aforesaid order dated 18.09.2024 reads
as under:-
“Heard learned counsel for the
petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners seek regular bail in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60863 of 2025(3) dt.10-02-2026
2/3
connection with Sursand P.S. Case No. 83 of
2024, lodged under Sections 302/34 of the
I.P.C. read with Sections 25(1-B)a, 26, 27 and
35 of the Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, due to
earlier dispute, the petitioners and others are
said to have fired indiscriminately upon the
deceased, who is none other than wife of the
informant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that the petitioners are innocent and
have committed no offence. The petitioners are
in custody since 16.02.2024. The names of the
petitioners have figured in this case due to
previous enmity. The petitioner of Cr. Misc. No.
36660 of 2024 has two criminal antecedents
and the petitioner of Cr. Misc. No. 37974 of
2024 has one criminal antecedent.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes
the prayer for bail and submits that there are
criminal antecedents of the petitioners.
6. Considering the fact that one person
has been killed by the petitioners and others, I
am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners
and therefore, the present bail applications are
hereby rejected.”
4. It has fairly been submitted by learned
Senior Counsel for the petitioner that out of six witnesses, four
witnesses have been examined in the trial.
5. Considering the fact that the trial is
proceeding and also the laid down down by the Hon’ble
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60863 of 2025(3) dt.10-02-2026
3/3
Supreme Court in the case of X vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
reported as 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3539, I am not inclined to
review my earlier order dated 18.09.2024. Accordingly, this bail
application is dismissed.
6. The Superintendent of Police, Sitamarhi is
directed to ensure the presence of witnesses in the trial.
7. Let a copy of this order be communicated to
the Superintendent of Police, Sitamarhi forthwith through FAX
or e-mail for its compliance.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
pawan/-
U T
Checking your session…