Patna High CourtCR. MISC./85563/2025bail granted

Pappu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2026-01-19Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.85563 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-80 Year-2025 Thana- Chhaudahi District- Begusarai ====================================================== Pappu Kumar Son of Laddulal Mehto R/O Village- Chhaurahi, P.S.- Chhaurahi, District- Begusarai ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ajay Thakur, Advocate Ms. Vaishnavi Singh, Advocate For the Informant : Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 19-01-2026 Heard Mr. Ajay Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the Informant and Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha, learned APP for the State.

2. Petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 15.08.2025, in connection with Chaurahi P.S. Case No. 80 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 24.07.2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109(1), 303(2), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 and later on Section 103(1) of the B.N.S., 2023 was added.

3. Allegation against the petitioner is that he hit on the head of the informant's father with butt of the pistol, as a result of which he received severe head injury and later on he died.

2/4

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. As per allegation in the F.I.R. the petitioner has assaulted the deceased with the butt of his pistol and he has received injury and he snatched Rs 500/- from the pocket of the deceased. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the date of occurrence as alleged in the F.I.R. is 17.07.2025 but the present F.I.R. was instituted on 24.07.2025 after delay of seven days without giving any explanation of delay and the injured person (deceased) after treatment he returned back from the Hospital on 11.08.

2025 and thereafter he died on 13.08.2025 at his residence and inquest report was prepared at the house which suggest that his death was done in his house and as per cause of death is concerned, it appears from the post mortem report that "Cause of death: In my opinion death was due to septicemic shock as a result of above mentioned injuries caused by heavy, hard and blunt object."

3/4 statement. He further submits that the police after investigation submitted chargesheet against the petitioner and the petitioner is in custody since 15.08.2025.

5. Learned counsel for the Informant as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has assaulted to the deceased and due to this reason, the deceased has died.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the petitioner having clean antecedent and the cause of death is due to septicemic shock, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Manjhaul, Begusarai in connection with Chaurahi P.S. Case No. 80 of 2025, subject to the following conditions :-

(1) 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.

4/4

(2) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witness, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

(3) 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 antecedents, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. 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) Ibrar//- U T