Patna High Court
Subin KumarversusThe State Of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The court denied bail to the petitioner.
Summary
Petitioner Subin Kumar applied for bail in a criminal case registered under Sections 103 and 238 of the B.N.S. and Sections 25(1‑b)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act. The prosecution alleges that a mobile phone of the deceased was recovered from the petitioner's house and that the petitioner has two prior criminal convictions. The petitioner contends that he is innocent, was not named in the FIR and was implicated only on suspicion during investigation. The court examined the material evidence, the seriousness of the offences and the petitioner's antecedents. Considering the suspicion, the recovered phone and the criminal record, the court rejected the bail application and ordered the trial to be expedited within one year.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner despite the lack of direct evidence and the presence of suspicion and material recovered from his house
- Whether the petitioner's prior criminal antecedents justify denial of bail
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- criminal antecedents
- Arms Act
- investigation
- suspicion
- trial expedite
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.83081 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-163 Year-2025 Thana- RAJAOLI District- Nawada
======================================================
Subin Kumar S/O Sargun Prasad Resident of Village- Nonay, P.S.- Akabarpur,
District- Nawada,
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Man Mohan Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Anant Kumar 1, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
3 30-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 103 and 238 of the B.N.S.
and Sections 25(1-b)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act.
3. As per prosecution case, informant suspects that
one Laxman Pandit, who is driver of another truck of father of
informant, due to money dispute, killed his father.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner
that petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence.
Informant is not an eye witness to the occurrence. Petitioner is
not named in the F.I.R.. Name of petitioner transpired in this
case during course of investigation only on suspicion. Save and
except suspicion, there is no material on record to show the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83081 of 2025(3) dt.30-01-2026
2/2
complicity of this petitioner in the alleged offence. Moreover,
charge-sheet has already been submitted and petitioner is in
custody since 30.03.2025.
5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has
vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner
and submitted that name of petitioner transpired during course
of investigation and mobile phone of the deceased was
recovered from the house of this petitioner. Petitioner has got
two criminal antecedents.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, materials that have surfaced during course of investigation
and criminal antecedents of the petitioner, the prayer for grant
bail of to the petitioner is rejected.
7. However, considering the fact that petitioner is in
custody since 30.03.2025, the learned trial court is directed to
expedite the trial and conclude the same, preferably within a
period of one year from the date of receipt/production of a copy
of this order.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U T
Checking your session…