Sintu Kumar @ Sintunia @ Santun Roy v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31192 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-533 Year-2025 Thana- BALIYA District- Begusarai ====================================================== Sintu Kumar @ Sintunia @ Santun Roy Son of Ramjeevan Sangahi @ Jogi Sangahi @ Jogi Roy @ Ramjiwan Sangahi Resident of Village- Shadipur, P.S.- Ballia, District- Begusarai ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Amit Prakash, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Chandra Sen Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 07-05-2026 Heard Mr. Amit Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Chandra Sen Prasad Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since 09.02.2026 in connection with Ballia P.S. Case No. 533 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 02.12.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 281, 125, 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 352, 351(2) and 109(1) of the BNS, 2023.
3. According to prosecution case, all the accused persons including this petitioner with common intention to kill the informant collided their Scorpio with the informant and also assaulted him.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
2/4 petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. The allegation as alleged in the FIR is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. In fact, due to road accident the present occurrence has taken place and the informant has received injury due to said road accident and no such occurrence has taken place as alleged in the FIR. In fact, some altercation took place between the parties and due to this reason the informant has falsely implicated the petitioner and other accused persons in the present case. He further submits that co-accused person, namely, Chandan Kumar @ Chandan has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 27.04.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 27757 of 2026, another co-accused person, namely, Sanjeev Kumar @ Pappu @ Papu Rai has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 05.05.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 29816 of 2026. The petitioner is in custody since 09.02.2026.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the informant has received injury which is grievous in nature and apart from that the petitioner carries two criminal antecedents other than the present one but fairly submits on the basis of paragraph-3 of the bail petition that out of two cases,
3/4 the petitioner is on bail in one case and one case is pending for consideration before the competent court of law.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as similarly situated co-accused person has been granted bail by this Court, let the petitioner, 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 the learned CJM, Begusarai in connection with Ballia P.S. Case No. 533 of 2025, subject to the following conditions:- i. Petitioner 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 petitioner 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 petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the
4/4 acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Ibrar//- U