Pintu Kumar @ Pintu Ram v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.168 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-142 Year-2024 Thana- JAHANABAD District- Jehanabad ====================================================== Pintu Kumar @ Pintu Ram S/o- Santosh Ram R/v- Daudpur, Kalpa OP PsDist- Jehanabad ... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Kavita Devi W/o- Late Binod Manjhi R/v- Daudpur, Kalpa OP Ps DistJehanabad ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Appellant/s :
Mr. Raju Kumar, Advocate Mr. Shubham Samrat, Advocate For the Respondent/s :
Ms. Usha Kumari 1, SPP For the Respondent No.2:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Mishra, Advocate Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 14-05-2026 Heard Mr. Raju Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 2 as well as Ms. Usha Kumari 1, learned Spl.P.P. for the State.
2. This is an appeal under Sections 14(A)(2) against refusal of the prayer for regular bail by order dated 05.12.2025 passed by the learned Court of Additional Sessions Judge-Icum-Special Judge, (SC/ST), Jehanabad in connection with Spl. SC/ST Case No. 26 of 2025 arising out of Jehanabad (Kalpa) P.S. Case No. 142 of 2024, F.I.R. dated 17.02.2024 registered under Sections 364, 302, 201 and 120B of the IPC and Sections 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act
2/4 (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
3. According to the prosecution case, the informant suspect that this appellant along with other accused persons have killed her husband.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and he has been made accused merely on the basis of suspicion. He further submits that one Chandan Kumar was apprehended and his confessional statement was recorded in which he has stated that the co-accused, namely, Kamlesh Kahar has killed the husband of the informant and the said Chandan Kumar is the uncle of the informant. He further submits that Kamlesh Kahar has been granted bail vide order dated 19.07.2024 by the learned Trial Court. He further submits that the police, after investigation, submitted charge sheet against the appellant. The appellant is in custody since 03.11.2025.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 2 as well as learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant and submits that the appellant is named in the FIR and
3/4 he has participated in the present crime in question and trial is in progress and out of 8 charge sheet witnesses, 5 witnesses have been examined.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, let the appellant, above named, 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 learned Court of Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, (SC/ST), Jehanabad in connection with Spl. SC/ST Case No. 26 of 2025 arising out of Jehanabad (Kalpa) P.S. Case No. 142 of 2024, with other following conditions:- i. Appellant shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. ii. If the appellant tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the appellant and in case at any stage it is found that the appellant have concealed his
4/4 criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the appellant. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
7. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and this appeal stands allowed.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Vanisha/- U T