Patna High Court
Sintu KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The Court held that bail could not be granted as the prosecution’s evidence established a prima facie case and the offences are of a serious nature.
Summary
The petitioners, Sintu Kumar and Pintu Kumar, were arrested on 30‑08‑2025 in connection with a murder‑related FIR dated 13‑08‑2025 that alleged offences under the Bihar Negotiable Substances Act, 2023 and the Arms Act, 1959. The informant’s brother was shot on an over‑bridge, and the informant identified three men as the assailants, later implicating the petitioners. The petitioners applied for bail, claiming they have clean antecedents, were not named in the FIR, and that the allegations are fabricated, relying on a co‑accused’s confession that exonerated them. The State, represented by the APP, opposed bail, citing recovered weapons, a pistol, cartridges and the motorcycle used in the crime, and the seriousness of the charges. After hearing both sides, the Court found the material on record sufficient to justify continued detention and refused the bail petition. Consequently, the petitioners remain in custody pending trial.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to bail despite the seriousness of the offences alleged under the Bihar Negotiable Substances Act, 2023 and the Arms Act, 1959.
- Whether the evidence, including recovered weapons and the co‑accused’s confession, establishes a prima facie case warranting denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act, 1959 — s. 25(1-b)A, 26, 27, 35
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- murder
- arms act
- Bihar Negotiable Substances Act
- investigation
- FIR
- bail refusal
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90682 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-86 Year-2025 Thana- Chitragupta Nagar District- Khagaria
======================================================
1. Sintu Kumar S/O Hareram Chaudhary R/O Vill.- Amani (Hiyadpur), P.S.-
Mansi, Dist.- Khagaria, Bihar
2. Pintu Kumar S/O Hareram Chaudhary R/O Vill.- Amani (Hiyadpur), P.S.-
Mansi, Dist.- Khagaria, Bihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms.Seema Kumari, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms.Asha Devi, APP
For the Informant : Mr.Deepak Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 23-03-2026 Heard Ms.Seema Kumari, learned counsel for the
petitioners, Mr.Deepak Kumar, learned counsel for the
informant and Ms.Asha Devi, learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners seek bail, who are in custody since
30.08.2025 in connection with Chitragupta Nagar P.S. Case No.
86 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 13.08.2025 registered for the offence
punishable under Sections 126(2),118(1),109,61(2)/3(5) of
BNS, 2023 later on Sections 103(1) of BNS, Section 27 of Arms
Act and Section 25(1-b)A, 26,35 of the Arms Act were added.
3. The case of prosecution in brief according to
informant Raushan Kumar on dated 13.08.2025 at about 6-7
A.M that informant's brother Neeraj Kumar Bulbul Chaudhary
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90682 of 2025(3) dt.23-03-2026
2/3
went out for a walk in the morning. At around 7 a.m informant
was informed by the villagers that his brother has been shot on
the over bridge. After the said information, informant and his
two nephews reached the Gaushala Rond over Bridge and saw
that there was a huge crowd on the over bridge, when he went
there he saw that his brother was lying on the road in a wounded
state and a lot of blood was coming out from the right side of his
face. While bringing him, his brother told that three men came
on a pulsar motor cycle and after shooting him run towards
Surya Mandir his brother had a dispute with Kare Lal Yadav,
Amit Kumar, Abhijeet Sinha, Ram Pravesh Yadav, these people
repeatedly threatened to kill him.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
submits that the petitioners having clean antecedent. The
allegation as alleged in the FIR is false and fabricated and the
petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged in the
FIR. In fact the petitioners are not named in the FIR. The name
of the petitioners has been transpired during investigation and
thereafter co-accused person, namely, Mithun Kumar arrested
and he has confessed his guilt in the present occurrence and he
has also disclosed the name of the petitioners.
5. Learned counsel for the informant and learned APP
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90682 of 2025(3) dt.23-03-2026
3/3
for the State, on the basis of the material available on the record
and the case diary, have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail
of the petitioners and submits that it has come during
investigation in paragraph-126 of the case diary on the basis of
the disclosure made by the petitioners one country made pistol
and two cartridges, one motorcycle which was used in the
present crime in question have been recovered.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined
to enlarge the petitioners on bail in connection with Chitragupta
Nagar P.S. Case No. 86 of 2025 pending in the court of learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khagaria.
7. Prayer is refused.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Nitesh/-
U T
Checking your session…