Patna High Court
Shankar SawversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court denied anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
Summary
Shankar and Mithilesh applied for anticipatory bail in a case involving the murder of an informant's son, with offences under Sections 341, 323, 307, 302 and 324/34 IPC. The petitioners were not named in the FIR, but the informant later identified them in a re‑statement, alleging their involvement. The State opposed bail, arguing that investigation revealed a possible motive, an extra‑marital relationship, and that custodial interrogation was necessary, also noting a Section 82 CrPC process against them. The petitioners contended that no suspicion was initially recorded against them. The Court, after considering the submissions, declined to grant anticipatory bail, emphasizing the need for further investigation and the seriousness of the charges.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the accused are not named in the FIR but later implicated by the informant.
- Whether the seriousness of offences under Sections 341, 323, 307, 302 and 324/34 IPC precludes anticipatory bail.
- Whether the requirement of custodial interrogation under investigation justifies denial of bail.
- Whether the issuance of a Section 82 CrPC process affects the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 82
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 307, 323, 324, 34, 341
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Indian Penal Code
- Criminal Procedure Code
- murder
- assault
- investigation
- Section 82 CrPC
- bail denial
- extramarital affair
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.67092 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-646 Year-2023 Thana- GAURICHAK District- Patna
======================================================
1. Shankar Saw S/O Dukhit Saw Resident of Village- Ramnagar Diyara, P.S.-
Athmalgola, District- Patna
2. Mithilesh Saw S/O Dukit Saw Resident of Village- Ramnagar Diyara, P.S.-
Athmalgola, District- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arvind Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Mushtaque Alam, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 31-03-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners seek bail in anticipation of their
arrest in Gaurichak P. S. Case No.646 of 2023 registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 307, 302 and
324/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioner no.1 has antecedent of two cases, but then, the
said cases are under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and petitioner
no.2 has antecedent of one case and the informant alleges that
her son along with her co-villager Arvind had come to Patna and
were selling sugarcane juice, on 26.10.2023, Arvind informed
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67092 of 2025(4) dt.31-03-2026
2/4
that her son is ill and has been admitted in Icon Hospital,
accordingly, informant sent an amount of Rs.10,000/- for her
son’s treatment, further, at 9.00 A.M. on 26.10.2023, she was
informed that her son died, accordingly, she came to the hospital
and saw the dead body of her son and Arvind disclosed that four
unknown accused after having sugarcane used did not pay the
amount and asked the deceased to come near Gaurichak Bridge,
if he wants money, accordingly, the deceased went to the place
of occurrence, where he was assaulted by four unknown accused
leading to his death.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners are not named in theFIR nor the informant in her re-
statement disclosed the name of the petitioner nor raised any
suspicion against them but then subsequently one and half years
after the occurrence the informant disclosed the name of the
petitioners raising suspicion against them about their
involvement in the occurrence of killing of her son.
5. The learned APP opposes the anticipatory bail
application of the petitioners and fairly submits that though
petitioners are not named in the FIR nor the informant in her re-
statement disclosed their name but then during the course of
investigation, a fact transpired i.e. Arvind’s wife was having an
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67092 of 2025(4) dt.31-03-2026
3/4
extra marital relation with the deceased and the informant was
aware of the said relationship, as such she had sent the deceased
to Haryana but after sometime Arvind met the informant and
asked her to forget what happened and also pestered her to send
the deceased to Patna along with him for selling juice. It is next
submitted that thereafter the son of the informant came to Patna
along with Arvind and thereafter the occurrence was committed.
It is submitted that Arvind is even absconding and the name of
the petitioners transpired during the course of investigation
being co-villager of Arvind that they were also involved in the
occurrence of killing of the deceased. It is further submitted that
Arvind even had motive of committing the occurrence of killing
the deceased since he was having an affair with his wife and his
wife despite being aware that Arvind and the informant were
knowing her relationship with the deceased still used to talk to
the deceased as stated by the informant in her re-statement
recorded at Para-22 of the case diary. The learned APP next
submits that what is not in dispute rater stands admitted is that
the son of the informant died but then who killed the deceased is
an aspect of investigation for which custodial interrogation is
required. It is also submitted that process under Section 82
Cr.P.C. has been issued against the petitioners and Arvind.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67092 of 2025(4) dt.31-03-2026
4/4
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
APP, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of
anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
7. The anticipatory bail application of the petitioners
is rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…