Patna High Court
Satrudhan Kumar @ Shatrughan RamversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The court held that bail must be granted as there is no substantive evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged murder.
Summary
The petitioner, Satrudhan Kumar, was arrested in connection with a murder case but his name does not appear in the FIR; it surfaced only during investigation. The prosecution’s case is limited to a single phone call made by the petitioner to the deceased on the day of the incident, with no other evidence linking him to the crime. The petitioner has been in custody since 8 May 2025 and seeks regular bail under Section 103(1) of the BNS. The State opposed bail, but the court noted the lack of material incriminating the petitioner and the length of his pre‑trial detention. Consequently, the court allowed the bail application, ordering release on a bail bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of the same amount.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under Section 103(1) of the BNS given the absence of incriminating material in the record.
Legislation cited
- BNS — s. 103(1)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- Section 103(1)
- BNS
- FIR
- pre‑trial detention
- investigation
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.80056 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-119 Year-2025 Thana- PAKRIDAYAL District- East Champaran
======================================================
Satrudhan Kumar @ Shatrughan Ram Son of Ram Dev Ram @ Ramdeo Ram
Resident of village - Pakaridayal, P.S.- Pakaridayal, District - East
Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar No.Iii, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anil Prasad Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
3 04-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State .
2. Petitioner seeks regular bail for the offences
punishable under Sections 103 (1) of BNS.
3 . As per prosecution story, informant received
information that that some unknown miscreants had committed
the murder of her daughter and had thrown her body in a nearby
maize field.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is not named in the F.I.R.. The name of the petitioner
transpired during course of investigation . As per paragraph 20
of the case diary , it appears that this petitioner was in touch
with the deceased through mobile and on the alleged date of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80056 of 2025(3) dt.04-02-2026
2/2
incident regular call was made by this petitioner on the mobile
of deceased. Save and except, there is no other material on the
record to show the complicity of this petitioner in the aforesaid
occurrence . Petitioner is in custody since 08.05.2025 .
5 . Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the bail
application of the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case and period of custody , the bail application is
allowed. Let the above named petitioner 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
ADJ 2nd East Champaran Motihari in connection with
Pakaridayal P.S. Case No. 119 of 2025 .
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
Koushik/-
U T
Checking your session…