Patna High Court
Shatrudhan Kumar @ Shatrudhan RoyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The High Court granted bail to the petitioner, subject to specified conditions.
Summary
Shatrudhan Kumar was arrested in May 2025 in connection with a 2017 murder case (PS Case No. 273) alleging he poisoned a man to recover a loan, under Sections 302, 428 and 34 of the IPC. The petitioner claimed innocence, arguing that the FIR was filed two days after the alleged incident without explanation, that the informant was not an eyewitness, and that co‑accused persons had already been acquitted by the trial court. The prosecution opposed bail, citing the deceased’s statement implicating the petitioner and a prior criminal antecedent. The High Court noted the acquittal of co‑accused, the delay in filing the FIR, and the lack of direct evidence, and consequently ordered bail on a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions of cooperation, non‑tampering with evidence, and verification of antecedents. The bail order was directed to be implemented without further delay for verification.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriateness of granting bail to the petitioner in a murder case under Sections 302, 428 and 34 of the IPC given the circumstances?
- Does the delay in filing the FIR and the acquittal of co‑accused affect the bail decision?
- Should the petitioner’s alleged prior criminal antecedent preclude bail?
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 34, 428
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- IPC
- Section 302
- Section 428
- Section 34
- criminal antecedent
- co‑accused acquittal
- delay in FIR
- high court order
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.79208 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-273 Year-2017 Thana- DANAPUR District- Patna
======================================================
Shatrudhan Kumar @ Shatrudhan Roy S/O Harendra Ray R/O Village-
Chitrasenpur, P.o. and P.S.- Soanpur, Dist.- Saran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Neeraj Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Madhuri Lata, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 29-01-2026 Heard Mr. Neeraj Kumar Singh, learned counsel
for the petitioner as well as Ms. Madhuri Lata, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since
19.05.2025 in connection with Danapur P.S. Case No. 273 of
2017, F.I.R. dated 13.05.2017 for the offences punishable under
Sections 428, 302 and 34 of Indian Penal Code.
3. According to prosecution case, the informant
alleged that the petitioner along with other co-accused persons
killed his father by administering poison in his cold drink, when
his father went to the accused persons for collecting his loan
amount.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79208 of 2025(4) dt.29-01-2026
2/4
petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the
present case. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is
false and fabricated. The present FIR has been instituted on the
basis of information furnished by the deceased to the informant
and apart from that it appears from the FIR that date of the
occurrence was on 11.05.2017 but the FIR was lodge on
13.05.2017 i.e. after delay of about two days without giving any
reason of delay and informant is not the eye witness of the
alleged occurrence and even no one had seen the alleged
occurrence and merely on the basis of suspicion the petitioner
has been made accused in the present case and co-accused
persons, namely, Upendra Rai and Prabhu Rai against whom
there is similar allegation have been acquitted from the learned
Trial Court in S.T. No. 656 of 2023 vide order dated 02.01.2025
and S.T. No. 34 of 2022 vide order dated 04.11.2023. He further
submits that the police after investigation submitted the charge
sheet against the petitioner and the petitioner is in custody since
19.05.2025.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and
submits that deceased has informed the informant about the
involvement of the petitioner in the present case and apart from
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79208 of 2025(4) dt.29-01-2026
3/4
that the petitioner carries one criminal antecedent other than the
present one but fairly submits on the basis of paragraph-3 of the
bail application that the petitioner is on bail in the said matter.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
and similarly situated co-accused persons have been acquitted
from the learned Trial Court, let the petitioner, above named, be
released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned ACJM, Danapur in connection with
Danapur P.S. Case No. 273 of 2017, subject to the following
conditions:-
i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and
on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to
move for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at
any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79208 of 2025(4) dt.29-01-2026
4/4
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the
acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order
shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Suruchi/-
U T
Checking your session…