Santu Kumar @ Mantu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7896 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-210 Year-2024 Thana- KOILWAR District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Santu Kumar @ Mantu Kumar S/O Anil Kumar Resident Of VillageSripalpur, P.s.- Gidha, District- Bhojpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Ms. Malti Kumari, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Tarun Prasad Mandal, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 22-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. Petitioner seeks regular bail in Koilwar P. S. Case No. 210 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, on 01.05.2024 at 3.30 P.M., the son of the informant, namely Vikash Mahto and some villagers went to Gadhaiya Sand Mines to work, where firing took place to establish supremacy on mining of sand in which some persons got injured by bullets. The informant went there and found his son and Sudarshan Rai got injured by bullets in the said firing and died during their treatment. It is further alleged that the informant and Tulsi Rai, the father of Sudarshan

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7896 of 2026(3) dt.22-04-2026 2/3 Rai, went to hospital and found that the bullets hit 3-4 places on the bodies of the deceased. They also came to know that at Kamaluchak Gadhaiya Balu Ghat, the incident of firing took place between the group of Satyendra Pandey, his son Niraj Pandey and Guddu Rai and in the said incident, the informant's son Vikash Mahto and Sudarshan Rai died due to injuries of bullet and one Purnmashi Ram, the villager of the informant also sustained injuries of firearms in the said incident.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. Petitioner is not named in the F.I.R.. Name of petitioner transpired during investigation only on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused person. Save and except confessional statement, there is no material on record to show the complicity of this petitioner in the alleged offence. It is further submitted that co-accused Majnu Ray, having similar and identical allegations, has already been granted bail by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 18.02.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 9471 of 2026. Moreover, charge-sheet has already been submitted and petitioner is in custody since 22.11.2025.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail to the petitioner.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7896 of 2026(3) dt.22-04-2026 3/3

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, general and omnibus nature of accusation, claim based on parity and period of custody, the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner is allowed.

7. Accordingly, let the petitioner, mentioned above, be enlarged 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 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur at Ara in connection with Koilwar P.S. Case No. 210 of 2024.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Navya/- U T