Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Satyam KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL REJECTED

Holding

Anticipatory bail is denied to the petitioners.

Summary

The petitioners, Satyam Kumar and Amrita Kumari, were implicated in a murder case under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for allegedly killing the son of an informant. They sought anticipatory bail, asserting innocence, lack of eyewitness testimony, and clean antecedents. The State opposed the bail, presenting material evidence, including a post‑mortem report indicating death by asphyxia due to hyoid bone fracture, and emphasizing the specific and direct accusations against them. The Court examined the gravity of the offence, the seriousness of the allegations, and the evidentiary material gathered during investigation. Considering these factors, the Court concluded that the petitioners did not merit the protection of anticipatory bail. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was rejected.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita in view of the specific accusations of murder
  • Whether the material evidence and gravity of the offence justify denial of anticipatory bail

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • murder
  • Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
  • material evidence
  • grave offence

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.71808 of 2025
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-152 Year-2025 Thana- NAWADA District- Nawada
                 ======================================================
           1.     Satyam Kumar Son of Vijay Prasad Resident of Village - Parwati, P.S.-
                  Shahpur, District - Nawada.
           2.    Amrita Kumari Daughter of Vijay Prasad Resident of Village - Parwati, P.S.-
                 Shahpur, District - Nawada.

                                                                                  ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Brajesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Nawal Kishore Prasad, A.P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
                                       ORAL ORDER

6   05-02-2026                  Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

                   petitioners and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.

                                2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in Nawada

                   Town P. S. Case No. 152 of 2025 registered for the offences

                   punishable under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya

                   Nyaya Sanhita.

                                3. As per prosecution case, son of informant, namely

                   Jahangir, was in love affair with petitioner no. 2 and it is alleged

                   that on 04.02.2025, petitioner no. 2 called the son of informant

                   to take her sister, namely Chhoti Kumari, for examination and

                   thereafter, all the F.I.R. named accused persons, including these

                   petitioners, killed the son of informant.
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71808 of 2025(6) dt.05-02-2026
                                                        2/2




                                   4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on

                      behalf of the petitioners that petitioners are quite innocent and

                      have committed no offence. Informant is not an eye witness to

                      the occurrence. Petitioners have falsely been implicated in this

                      case merely on suspicion. Petitioners claim clean antecedents.

                                   5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has

                      vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to

                      the petitioners and submitted that petitioners are named in the

                      F.I.R. with specific accusation that they, along with other

                      accused persons, killed the son of informant. During course of

                      investigation, sufficient material evidence has come to suggest

                      that all the accused persons, including these petitioners, killed

                      the deceased. In the post mortem report, the cause of death is

                      Asphyxia due to hyoid bone fracture.

                                   6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

                      case, specific and direct nature of accusation, gravity of offence

                      and materials that have surfaced during course of investigation,

                      the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners is

                      rejected.



                                            (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
Navya/-
U       T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.