Patna High Court
Shivnath SahversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The petitioner is entitled to bail as there is no prima facie evidence against him and the investigation is complete.
Summary
Shivnath Sah was arrested in connection with the murder of Rahul Kumar under Sections 103(1), 3(5) and 61(2) of the BNS and has been in custody since 30‑08‑2025. The petitioner applied for bail, contending that the FIR was based solely on hearsay from an informant who was not an eye‑witness and that no incriminating material was found against him during the investigation, which is already completed and a charge‑sheet filed. He also pointed to a similar bail order granted to a co‑accused in Cr. Misc. 88940 of 2025 and argued that, having a clean antecedent, he should be released on bail. The State opposed the bail on the ground of the seriousness of the offence. The Court held that, apart from suspicion, there was no prima facie evidence linking the petitioner to the crime, the investigation was concluded, and the petitioner’s clean record warranted bail, and therefore ordered his release on bail subject to conditions under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 480(3) of the BNSS.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail when the FIR is based only on hearsay and no prima facie evidence links him to the offence
- Whether the completion of investigation and filing of charge‑sheet precludes the risk of tampering with evidence
- Whether parity with a similarly situated co‑accused who was granted bail requires the petitioner’s bail
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- suspicion
- charge‑sheet
- clean antecedent
- parity
- criminal procedure
- BNS
- Cr.P.C.
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.88372 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-140 Year-2025 Thana- MAHINDWARA District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Shivnath Sah Son of Ramchandra Sah Resident of Village- Baligarh @
Baligadh, P.S.- Runnisaidpur, District- Sitamarhi. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar. ... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar S.K., Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms.Renu Kumari, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
3 10-02-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Mahindwara P.S. Case No. 140 of 2025, registered for the offence
under Sections 103(1), 3(5), 61(2) of BNS.
3. The accused/petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and is
in custody since 30.08.2025.
4. As per FIR, informant was informed over the phone
that his son, namely, Rahul Kumar has been shot dead by
unknown miscreants at Morang Road, P.S. Mahindwara, District-
Sitamarhi. Upon receiving the said information, the informant
alongwith his family members rushed to SKMCH, Muzaffarpur,
where his son was declared dead during hospitalization. The
informant suspected that the petitioner alongwith other co-accused
persons had killed his son alleging that they had earlier threatened
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88372 of 2025(3) dt.10-02-2026
2/3
him to face dire consequences.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
submitted that entire implication against petitioner raised on the
basis of suspicion only and that too on the basis of hearsay input.
Admittedly informant is not the eye-witness of the occurrence. It is
submitted that considering the aforesaid aspect, one of the learned
co-ordinate Bench of this Court through Cr. Misc. 88940 of 2025
vide its order dated 08.01.2026 granted bail to one of similarly
situated co-accused person, namely, Shankar Paswan and,
therefore, as a matter of judicial parity, the petitioner also
deserves bail. In this context, it is also pointed out that during
investigation nothing transpired incriminating against petitioner
out of suspicion as expressed by informant while lodging present
FIR qua crime in question. While concluding argument, it is
submitted that investigation of this case is already completed, for
which charge-sheet has been submitted, as such, there is no
chance of tampering with the evidence. Petitioner claimed clean
antecedent.
6. Learned APP opposed the prayer of bail.
7. Considering the aforesaid factual submissions and by
taking note of fact as save and except suspicion, prima facie
nothing incriminating appears against petitioner during
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88372 of 2025(3) dt.10-02-2026
3/3
investigation as to connect him prima facie with present crime in
question, coupled with the fact that investigation of this case is
already completed, where petitioner being man of clean
antecedent, remains in custody since 30.08.2025, accordingly,
petitioner above named, is directed to be released on bail in
connection with Mahindwara P.S. Case No. 140 of 2025, on
furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with
two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned
Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sitamarhi/concerned Court, subject to
the conditions as mentioned under Section 437(3) of the
Cr.P.C./Section 480(3) of BNSS.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
veena/-
U
Checking your session…