Patna High Court
Santu Kumar @ Mantu KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The Court granted bail to the petitioner, finding that the evidence on record was insufficient to justify continued custody.
Summary
The petitioner, Santu Kumar, was implicated in a violent incident at a sand mine that resulted in deaths and injuries, leading to charges under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution’s case relied mainly on a confessional statement of a co‑accused, with no direct mention of the petitioner in the FIR. The petitioner argued that he was innocent, that the evidence against him was insufficient, and pointed to the grant of bail to a co‑accused in a similar case. The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the offences. The Court, after considering the lack of substantive material linking the petitioner to the crime and the principle of parity, allowed the bail application, directing the petitioner to furnish a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite the seriousness of the offences (IPC 302, 34 and Arms Act 27).
- Whether the confessional statement of a co‑accused alone suffices to justify continued detention of the petitioner.
- Whether parity with a co‑accused who was previously granted bail warrants granting bail to the petitioner.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 34
Subjects
- bail
- IPC 302
- murder
- conspiracy
- Arms Act
- confessional statement
- serious offences
- parity
- Criminal Procedure Code
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7896 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-210 Year-2024 Thana- KOILWAR District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Santu Kumar @ Mantu Kumar S/O Anil Kumar Resident Of Village-
Sripalpur, P.s.- Gidha, District- Bhojpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Malti Kumari, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Tarun Prasad Mandal, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
3 22-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks regular bail in Koilwar P. S. Case
No. 210 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of
the Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, on 01.05.2024 at 3.30
P.M., the son of the informant, namely Vikash Mahto and some
villagers went to Gadhaiya Sand Mines to work, where firing
took place to establish supremacy on mining of sand in which
some persons got injured by bullets. The informant went there
and found his son and Sudarshan Rai got injured by bullets in
the said firing and died during their treatment. It is further
alleged that the informant and Tulsi Rai, the father of Sudarshan
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7896 of 2026(3) dt.22-04-2026
2/3
Rai, went to hospital and found that the bullets hit 3-4 places on
the bodies of the deceased. They also came to know that at
Kamaluchak Gadhaiya Balu Ghat, the incident of firing took
place between the group of Satyendra Pandey, his son Niraj
Pandey and Guddu Rai and in the said incident, the informant’s
son Vikash Mahto and Sudarshan Rai died due to injuries of
bullet and one Purnmashi Ram, the villager of the informant
also sustained injuries of firearms in the said incident.
4. Learned counsel appearing 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
transpired during investigation only on the basis of confessional
statement of co-accused person. Save and except confessional
statement, there is no material on record to show the complicity
of this petitioner in the alleged offence. It is further submitted
that co-accused Majnu Ray, having similar and identical
allegations, has already been granted bail by this Hon’ble Court
vide order dated 18.02.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 9471 of
2026. Moreover, charge-sheet has already been submitted and
petitioner is in custody since 22.11.2025.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for bail to the petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7896 of 2026(3) dt.22-04-2026
3/3
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, general and omnibus nature of accusation, claim based on
parity and period of custody, the prayer for grant of bail to the
petitioner is allowed.
7. Accordingly, let the petitioner, mentioned above, be
enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten
thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bhojpur at Ara in connection with Koilwar P.S. Case No. 210 of
2024.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
Navya/-
U T
Checking your session…