Suman Kumar Yadav @ Suman Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44570 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-16 Year-2025 Thana- Marnga District- Purnia ====================================================== Suman Kumar Yadav @ Suman Kumar S/O Late Yogendra Yadav R/O Village- Ranga Kol (Rangakil), P.S- Falka, Distt.- Katihar. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Ranjeet Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.J.N. Thakur, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 20-01-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners have preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Maranga P.S. Case No. 16 of 2025 dated 17.01.2025 registered for the offences punishable u/ss 103, 302(2), 62 read with Section 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The allegation, as per the fardbayan of the informant Md. Asafak Alam, is that at about 2:00 A.M., on hearing noise, two unknown persons on a motorcycle allegedly fired at the informant's father when he questioned them about the noise in the village, causing injury to his left thigh. He later died during treatment and the FIR was lodged against the unknown persons.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44570 of 2025(3) dt.20-01-2026 2/2
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. Except for the confessional statements of the coaccused persons, there is nothing against the petitioner. He is not named in the FIR. No incriminating articles were recovered from the possession of the petitioner. He has further submitted that the co-accused persons, who have confessed their guilt, have been granted bail.
5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State, by drawing my attention towards paragraph nos. 37, 38 and 39 of the case diary, submitted that the tower location of the petitioner's mobile phone was found near the place of occurrence and that he has very strong criminal antecedents of 13 cases.
6. In my view, the petitioner does not deserve the privileges of bail, which is hereby rejected. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) Nirmal/- U T