Dismissed¶23

Md Kalam @ Md Kalaam v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC16 Oct 2025CR. APP (SJ)/2242/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail appeal dismissed; murder case (neck severed) under BNS 2023 103(1)/118(1)/3(5) with SC/ST Act 3(1)(r)/3(1)(s)/3(2)(v); bail prayer rejected 29.04.2025 by Special Judge-SC/ST, Supaul; charge-sheet filed; custody since 20.03.2025; counsel argued omnibus allegations, two-day FIR delay and no caste-name utterance; Court cited specific allegation and gravity of offence; six-month trial-completion window with liberty to renew bail.

What did the court decide?

No bail granted; conditional liberty to renew the prayer for bail in the Court below if the trial is not concluded within six months from receipt/production. ¶23

Md Kalam @ Md Kalaam Vs The State of Bihar — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Patna HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2242 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-56 Year-2025 Thana- PRATAPGANJ District- Supaul

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Md Kalam @ Md Kalaam S/o Late Md. Sakun R/o Village- Bhawanipur, Dakshin, P.S- Pratapganj, Dist- Supaul , Bihar

¶5

... ... Appellant/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar

¶8

Geeta Devi W/o Late Dinesh Marik R/o Village- Bhawanipur, Dakshin,Ward no- 13, P.S- Pratapganj, Dist- Supaul , Bihar

¶9

... ... Respondent/s

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Kuldeep Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Usha Kumari 1, SPP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA

¶11

ORAL ORDER

¶12

6 16-10-2025

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the case diary.

¶14

The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 29.04.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge-SC/ST (PoA), Supaul whereby the prayer for bail of the appellant in connection with Pratapganj P.S. Case No. 56 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 118(1), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act was rejected.

¶15

Prosecution case, in short, is that the appellant along with other co-accused persons have allegedly murdered

¶16

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2242 of 2025(6) dt.16-10-2025 2/3

¶17

the informant’s husband by way of severing his neck.

¶18

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. Charge-sheet has been submitted in this case. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that no specific allegation has been attributed against the appellant rather the same is general and omnibus in nature. There is delay of two days in lodging the FIR. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the appellant has not taken the caste name of the informant in public view. Hence, no offence under the provisions of SC/ST Act is made out against him. The appellant has no intention to disgrace the image of the informant in public view. The appellant is in custody since 20.03.2025 and has got no criminal antecedent.

¶19

Learned Special P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the appellant and submits that there is specific allegation regarding commission of heinous offence against the appellant. It is further submitted that postmortem report of the deceased also corroborates with the prosecution case. The informant in her re-statement in paragraph no. 4 of the case diary and other witnesses in their respective statements in paragraph nos. 9, 10, 13, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30

¶20

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2242 of 2025(6) dt.16-10-2025 3/3

¶21

have also supported that factum of occurrence and involvement of accused petitioner therein. Hence, the apppellant does not deserve the privilege of bail.

¶22

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, specific allegation as also nature and gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the appellant at this juncture.

¶23

Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial expeditiously. However, if the trial is not concluded within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production, the appellant will have liberty to renew his prayer for bail in the Court below.

¶24

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)

¶25

Rajorshi/-

Md Kalam @ Md Kalaam v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md Kalam @ Md Kalaam v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahadeo Bind @ Mahabir Bind Vs The State of Bihar

Kamlesh Sahani @ Kamlesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Vipin Kumar @ Vikash Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Sanoj Yadav @ Sanoj Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Naresh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Amod Kumar @ Amed Kumar Paswan Vs The State of Bihar