Patna High Court
Rohit Kumar @ Raj Rishu @ Raj RishiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The court granted bail to the petitioner subject to specified conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Rohit Kumar, was charged with offences under Sections 103(1), 351(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S. for allegedly killing the son of an informant. The prosecution’s case rests largely on suspicion, with no eye‑witness and only one of six charge‑sheet witnesses examined. The petitioner argued that the alleged motive stemmed from a land dispute and that the presence of his tower near the crime scene was not incriminating, emphasizing his lack of prior criminal record and prolonged pre‑trial custody since 29‑08‑2024. The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the alleged murder. The High Court, after considering the paucity of material evidence and the pending trial, ordered the petitioner to be released on bail with a bond of Rs 10,000 and two sureties, subject to conditions of personal appearance and a relative as a bailor.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted when the prosecution case is based mainly on suspicion and lacks eye‑witness testimony.
- Whether the proximity of the accused’s tower to the crime scene justifies denial of bail.
- Whether the length of pre‑trial detention and absence of prior convictions warrant bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 103(1), 3(5), 351(2)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- suspicion
- pre‑trial detention
- land dispute
- murder
- Section 103(1) B.N.S.
- Section 351(2) B.N.S.
- Section 3(5) B.N.S.
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.73487 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-94 Year-2024 Thana- Manikpur District- Lakhisarai
======================================================
Rohit Kumar @ Raj Rishu @ Raj Rishi S/O Brahmdeo Mahto @ Brahamdeo
Mahto R/O Village- Manikpur, P.S.- Manikpur, District- Lakhisarai
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vijay Anand, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Satyendra Prasad, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
4 11-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The earlier application for grant of bail on behalf
of the petitioner was rejected by an order dated 23.04.2025
passed in Cr. Misc. No. 89469 of 2024 ( Annexure-P/1) and the
prayer has been renewed upon change of stage.
3. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 103 (1), 351 (2) and 3 (5) of
B.N.S.
4. As per the prosecution case, petitioner and others
are alleged to have killed the son of the informant.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
there is no eye witness to the present case and the informant is
also not an eye witness of the alleged offence. It is further
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73487 of 2025(4) dt.11-02-2026
2/3
submitted that there is a land dispute between the parties and
there is no other tangible material to suggest the complicity of
the petitioner but for tower location which has been found near
the place of occurrence. It is only on account of suspicion that
the petitioner has been made an accused in this case as he had
earlier threatened the son of the deceased. It has also been
submitted that since the petitioner belongs to the same village
his tower location being found at the place of occurrence should
not be leading to any suspicion. Further, the petitioner has been
languishing in custody since 29.08.2024 and bears no criminal
antecedent. Charges have been framed on 24.04.2025 and out of
six witnesses named in the charge sheet only one prosecution
witness has been examined and as such there is no likelihood of
conclusion of trial in the near future.
6. Learned APP for the State opposed the bail petition.
7. Taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances of the case and also considering the case resting
on suspicion, the above named petitioner is directed to be
enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs10,000/- (Rupees
Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned Court below where the case is
pending/successor Court in connection with Session Trial No.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73487 of 2025(4) dt.11-02-2026
3/3
92 of 2025 arising out of Manikpur P.S. Case No. 94 of 2024,
subject to the conditions that :
(i) One of the bailors will be his close relative/family
members.
(ii) The petitioner shall remain physically present in
court on each and every date during trial and in the event of
failure on two consecutive dates without sufficient reasons, his
bail bonds shall be liable to be cancelled by the learned court
concerned.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
vashudha/-
U T
Checking your session…