Shatrudhan Singh @ Karu Singh @ Shatrudhan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34896 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-60 Year-2025 Thana- PIPRIYA District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== Shatrudhan Singh @ Karu Singh @ Shatrudhan Kumar Son of Late Ram Naresh Sharma @ Naresh Singh Resident of Village- Walipur, P.S.- Pipariya, District- Lakhisarai ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 36648 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-60 Year-2025 Thana- PIPRIYA District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== Madhav Kashyap @ Madhav Kumar Son of Satrudhan Singh @ Karu Singh Resident of village - Walipur, P.S.- Pipariya, District - Lakhisarai. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 34896 of 2026) For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Abhay Shanker Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Anuj Kumar Shrivastava, APP (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 36648 of 2026) For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Abhay Shanker Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Anuj Kumar Shrivastava, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 08-07-2026 Heard Mr. Abhay Shanker Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Anuj Kumar Shrivastava, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioners seek bail in connection with Pipariya P.S. Case No. 60 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 19.06.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 103 (1), 61 (2)(a), 3 (5) of the B.N.S. 2023 and sections 27 of the Arms act.
3. According to prosecution case, informant alleged that, on 17.06.2025, when husband of the informant was returning,
2/4 accused persons along with unknown came and killed him by bullet shot.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are innocent and they falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that it appears from the FIR that date of occurrence is of 17.06.2025 at 11.30 P.M but the FIR was instituted on 19.06.2025 at 19.40 P.M, after thought only to falsely implicated the petitioners. It is further submitted that a bare perusal of the inquest report reveals that the same was prepared on 18.06.2025 at 2:30 A.M.; however, it does not disclose the names of any accused persons. Moreover, the post-mortem examination was also conducted on 18.06.2025, whereas the present FIR came to be instituted only thereafter.
This clearly suggests that the FIR was lodged after the post-mortem report had become available and, after due deliberation, the petitioners and other accused persons were falsely implicated in the present case. He next submits that nothing has come during investigation which suggest the involvement of the petitioners in the present occurrence and similarly situated co-accused persons, namely, Uma Shankar Sharma @Mukesh Singh and Chandan Kumar @ Titu Dhamak have been granted the privilege of bail by this Court vide order dated 19.03.2026 in Cr. Misc. No. 68547 of 2025 and Cr. Misc.
3/4 No. 87503 of 2025 and other co-accused persons, namely, Shivam Bhardwaj @ Golu Babu and Vikash Bharadwaj @ Vikas Bharadwaj have been granted the privilege of anticipatory bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.09.2025 and 12.02.2026 in Cr. Misc. No. 53025 of 2025 and Cr. Misc.No. 69568 of 2025. The police after investigation submitted chargesheet against the petitioners and the petitioner, namely,Shatrudhan Singh @ Karu Singh @ Shatrudhan Kumar is in custody since 25.11.2025 and petitioner, namely, Madhav Kashyap @ Madhav Kumar is in custody since 09.01.2026.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners and submits that petitioner, namely,Shatrudhan Singh @ Karu Singh @ Shatrudhan Kumar carries four five criminal antecedents and petitioner,namely, Madhav Kashyap @ Madhav Kumar carries six criminal antecedents other than the present one but fairly submits that both the petitioners are on bail in the pending matters.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioners, 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 C.J.M., Lakhisarai/concerned J.M. 1st Class, Lakhisarai in connection
4/4 with Pipariya P.S. Case No. 60 of 2025,, subject to the following conditions:- i. Petitioners 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 their absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, their bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. ii. If the petitioners tamper 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 petitioners and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioners have concealed their criminal antecedents, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioners. 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.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Suruchi/- U T