Suman Kumar Paswan @ Suman Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17874 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-103 Year-2025 Thana- NAYA RAM NAGAR District- Munger ====================================================== Suman Kumar Paswan @ Suman Kumar S/O Prabha Shankar Chandra R/O Chamangarh, Ward no- 9, PO- Kalarampur, P.S.- Bariarpur, Munger, Bihar811211 ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Patna ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Apurv Harsh, Advocate Mr. Manu Tripurari, Advocate Mr. Raghu Raj Pratap, Advocate Ms. Tanu Priya, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Chandra Sen Prasad Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR ORAL ORDER 29-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The Petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Naya Ramnagar P.S. Case No. 103 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 103, 303(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant, Vido Paswan, has alleged that his son, Vikram Kumar, was married to Amrita Kumari about six years ago, and a female child was born out of their wedlock. It is further alleged that after some time, Vikram Kumar came to know that his wife, Amrita Kumari, was involved in an illicit relationship with one Suman Paswan (the
2/4 petitioner). Despite objections raised by the informant's family on several occasions, Amrita Kumari did not mend her ways and eventually returned to her parental home. It is further alleged that on 25.11.2025 at about 10:00 PM, Vikram Kumar found Amrita Kumari in a compromising position with Suman Paswan and objected to the same. Thereafter, Amrita Kumari along with other co-accused persons, who were variously armed with sticks and rods, formed an unlawful assembly and assaulted Vikram Kumar, as a result of which he became unconscious and fell on the ground. It is further alleged that thereafter the accused persons tied a rope around his neck and all of them strangulated him to death. It is also alleged that the petitioner snatched a gold chain worth Rs. 1,20,000/- from the neck of Vikram Kumar and also took away Rs. 10,000/-.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. It has further been submitted that there was a delay of two days in lodging the FIR. The inquest report was prepared on 26.11.2025 at about 7:30 A.M. It is stated that the police reached the place of occurrence at about 6:30 P.M. on 26.11.2025 upon information given by a local villager. It is further submitted that, as per paragraph no. 3 of the case diary, the informant and other
3/4 family members had arrived after the preparation of the inquest report; however, no statement was made by them before the concerned police officer at that stage. Ultimately, the FIR was lodged on 27.11.2025 at about 20:00 hours, after considerable delay. Learned counsel has further submitted that, in fact, the deceased committed suicide. As per the post-mortem report, there are no external or internal injuries on the body of the deceased, and the autopsy surgeon has opined that the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of hanging. It has also been submitted that there is no material on record to suggest that the petitioner was ever involved in an illicit relationship with the wife of the deceased. There is no evidence to show that any person had ever seen the petitioner in the company of the wife of the deceased.
It has further been submitted that the informant claims to be an eyewitness to the occurrence, which is not possible, as he was admittedly present at his own house on the alleged date of occurrence and all the allegations are based on hearsay and suspicion. Lastly, it has been submitted that nothing has come in the forensic science laboratory examination and the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
4/4
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the nature of allegation against the petitioner, let the above named petitioner, in the event of his arrest/surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be enlarged on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court concerned, Munger, in connection with Naya Ramnagar P.S. Case No. 103 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the Bharitya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.)
7. This application stands allowed.
(Praveen Kumar, J) Jyoti/- U T