Pradeep Kumar @ Pradeep Kumar Paswan v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17792 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-256 Year-2025 Thana- CHARPOKHARI District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Pradeep Kumar @ Pradeep Kumar Paswan, Son of Birj Bihari Paswan, Resident of Village- Bhallor, P.S.- Charpokhri, District- Arrah (Bhojpur). ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Jawed Gaffar Khan, Adv.
For the Informant :
Mr. Dhanesh Shankar Vidyarthi, Adv.
Mr. Uttam Kumar Tiwary, Adv.
For the State :
Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY ORAL ORDER 21-05-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the informant and the learned A.P.P. for the State through virtual mode.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his/her arrest in connection with Charpokhri P.S. Case No. 256 of 2025 registered for the offence(s) under Section(s) 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.).
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant has
2/4 alleged that her husband was called by one Dharmendra Paswan and, thereafter, he went to meet him, but did not return. The informant has further alleged that when she started looking for her husband, she found him lying dead near the marayee (small hut) and his eyes were bleeding and she feared that her husband has been done to death by the named accused persons including the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case on mere suspicion. It has been submitted that there is no eye-witness to the occurrence and it has not come during the course of investigation that the petitioner had nothing personal against the deceased. It has further been submitted that, on the contrary, during the course of investigation, some of the villagers have stated that there was a long standing dispute between the husband of the informant and Sanjay Paswan and Vijay Paswan, who have carried out the said act along with one Kamlesh Paswan and his friend, namely, Sagar Paswan. It has been submitted that during the course of investigation, it has also come that Sanjay Paswan and Vijay Paswan are relatives of the deceased and a title suit, bearing No. 88 of 2017, is also pending between them. It has next been submitted that barring the fact
3/4 that the marayee (small hut), where the occurrence is said to be occurred, belongs to the petitioner, there is nothing against him to connect his complicity in the said incident. It has lastly been submitted that the petitioner has clean antecedent.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant as well as the learned A.P.P. for the State have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and have submitted that there are serious allegations against him.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, let the petitioner, above-named, be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of his/her arrest or surrender before the concerned Court/successor Court within a period of four weeks from today, on his/her furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the concerned Court/successor Court where the case is pending in connection with Charpokhri P.S. Case No. 256 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with corresponding Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.S.) as well as subject to
4/4 the following conditions :
(i) One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be his/her close relative and the other shall be a local resident.
(ii) The petitioner shall remain physically present before the concerned Court on each and every date of the trial and shall cooperate in the investigation. (iii) In case of absence for two consecutive occasions or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bonds of the petitioner will be liable to be cancelled by the concerned Court.
(iv) The concerned Court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case, at any stage, it is found that he/she has concealed his/her criminal antecedents, the Court concerned shall take necessary steps for cancellation of his/her bail bond. 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. It is made clear that the observations, if any, made in this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.
8. The application stands allowed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J) Praveen-II/- U T