Sunil Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 5008 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-107 Year-2025 Thana- MOHANPUR District- Jamui ====================================================== 1.

Sunil Paswan Son of Late Suraj Paswan R/o Village - Bishanpur, P.S - Mohanpur(Laxmipur), District - Jamui.

2.

Akhilesh Kumar @ Akhilesh Paswan @ Azad Paswan Son of Sunil Paswan R/o Village - Bishanpur, P.S - Mohanpur(Laxmipur), District - Jamui. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 5334 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-107 Year-2025 Thana- MOHANPUR District- Jamui ====================================================== Sunita Devi W/o Sikandar Paswan R/o Village - Bishanpur, P.S.- Mohanpur, (Laxmipur), District - Jamui ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 5008 of 2026) For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Pramod Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Abhay Kumar (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 5334 of 2026) For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Prakash Mahto For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Madan Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH ORAL ORDER 01-04-2026 Both Cr. Misc. applications have arisen out of the same occurrence and as such they have been heard together and are being disposed of by passing this common order.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

3. The petitioners have preferred this application for

2/4 grant of regular bail in connection with Mohanpur P.S. Case No. 107 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1) and 238 of the BNS.

4. As per the prosecution case, the informant, who is a police official, has stated that on 09.09.2025 at about 09:50 AM, he received information that a dead body was lying near Lakshmipur Main Road, partially covered with dry leaves, with only the head visible. Upon reaching the place of occurrence, he found the same to be true, and accordingly, the F.I.R. was instituted against unknown.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case. The allegation against the petitioners is purely false, concocted and frivolous one. The petitioners have been implicated in the present case only on the basis of the confessional statement of co-accused Sunita Devi, wherein she has stated that, on account of her daughter's alleged extramarital affair with deceased, she, along with other family members, committed the murder of Bambam Paswan, whereas the same has no evidentiary value in the eye of law. The petitioners are in custody since 12.10.2025.

6. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State has

3/4 vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners.

7. It is stated in paragraph 27 of the case diary that on 08.09.2025, the deceased, Bambam Paswan, informed her father over a phone call that Sunita Devi had contacted her on her mobile phone and conveyed that she intended to marry her daughter, Nisha Kumari, to him. Further, in para nos. 28, 29, 64, 65, and 66 the witnesses have stated that the deceased Bambam Paswan was in love affair with the daughter (Nisha Kumari) of the petitioner (Sunita Devi). On 08.09.2025, Sunita Devi, along with other co-accused persons, in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy, allegedly called the deceased on the pretext of solemnizing his marriage with Nisha Kumari, and on the following day, i.e., 09.09.2025, the dead body of Bambam Paswan was recovered bearing multiple injuries. From perusal of paragraph 38 of the case diary, it further appears that accused Sunita Kumari has confessed her guilt in connection with the alleged occurrence, disclosing the involvement of the accused persons in the commission of the offence.

8. Considering the materials available on record, this Court finds that there are specific allegations of a well-planned conspiracy wherein the deceased was called by the petitioner (Sunita Devi) under false pretext of marriage and subsequently

4/4 he was killed by the accused persons. The manner in which the offence is alleged to have been committed reflects premeditation and criminal conspiracy with oblique motive.

9. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the accusation, the manner of commission of the offence, the materials collected during investigation, and the seriousness of the allegations, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioners is hereby rejected.

(S. B. Pd. Singh, J) Ankit Kumar/- U T