Patna High Court

Suraj Kumar @ MonaversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 13 February 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: RAJIV ROY

Holding

The bail application is dismissed; the petitioner is not entitled to bail.

Summary

The petitioner, Suraj Kumar, is in custody for alleged murder, criminal conspiracy, intimidation and unlawful possession of arms under sections 302, 120‑B, 506, 34 of the IPC and section 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution alleges that he and an accomplice opened fire, killing his paternal aunt, and the FIR records a confession that the petitioner inserted four bullets into the victim’s head. The trial court has framed charges but has not produced any witnesses, and a non‑bailable warrant issued against witnesses remains unexecuted. The petitioner applied for bail, arguing the lack of prosecution evidence and delay. The High Court, noting the seriousness of the allegation and the petitioner’s confession, refused bail and directed the trial court to expedite the trial within six months, ensuring execution of warrants against witnesses.

Issues considered

What is the appropriate decision on the bail application in view of the serious murder allegation and the prosecution’s failure to produce witnesses?
Whether the trial court should be directed to expedite the trial and enforce non‑bailable warrants against witnesses.

Legislation cited

Arms Act — s. 27
Indian Penal Code — s. 120-B, 302, 34, 506

Subjects

bail
murder
IPC
Arms Act
trial delay
non-bailable warrant
criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.82666 of 2025
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-64 Year-2022 Thana- MEHANDIGANJ District- Patna
                 ======================================================
                 Suraj Kumar @ Mona Son of Shivnath Vishwakarma @ Tuntun Mistry @
                 Shiv Nath Sharma Resident of Mohalla - Bhaisani Tola, Bari Bagicha, P.S. -
                 Malsalami, District – Patna.                            ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                Versus
                 The State of Bihar                              ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr.Arvind Kumar Pradhan, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr.Chandra Sen Prasad Singh, APP
                 For the Informant        :      Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
                                       ORAL ORDER

4   13-02-2026                  Heard Mr.Arvind Kumar Pradhan, learned counsel for

                   the petitioner and Mr. Vijay Kumar for the informant beside

                   Mr.Chandra Sen Prasad Singh

                                2. The petitioner is in custody in connection with

                   Mehandiganj P.S. Case No. 64 of 2022 for the offence punishable

                   under sections 302, 120-B, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code

                   and section 27 of the Arms Act, lodged on 17.04.2022 by the

                   informant, Laljee Sharma.

                                3. The prosecution story alleges that the petitioner and

                   Mukesh Kumar opened fire causing the death of his paternal aunt

                   Chinta Devi. This followed the FIR.

                                4. Though, the FIR shows that Mukesh Kumar opened

                   fire, paragraph-29 the case diary records the statement of the

                   accused-petitioner before the Police wherein he recorded to have

                   inserted four bullets in the head of his paternal aunt.
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82666 of 2025(4) dt.13-02-2026
                                                       2/2




                                  5. The Trial Court Report was called for, according to

                     which, though charges have been framed, the prosecution has not

                     produced any witness.

                                  6. The report further shows that that non-bailable

                     warrant issued on 02.09.2025 but it failed to record what happened

                     from 02.09.2025 till the report was sent on 05.01.2026. Clearly,

                     when the petitioner is in custody and the prosecution has failed to

                     produce any witness, the Trial Court shall ensure that the non-

                     bailable warrants issued against the witnesses are executed by the

                     Police and the report be also sought for from ASP, Patna City,

                     Patna as also the S.S.P., Patna in this regard. In any case, it is high

                     time that the trial is taken to its logical conclusion without any

                     unnecessary delay.

                                  7. So far as the bail application is concerned,

                     considering the allegation that has come against the petitioner of

                     putting in four bullets in the head of his paternal aunt, this Court

                     is not inclined to grant him relief. It is accordingly, rejected.

                                  8. The Trial Court shall ensure that all possible steps are

                     taken and the trial is taken to its logical conclusion, preferably

                     within a period of six months.

                                                        (Rajiv Roy, J)
Ravi/-
U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…