Rahul Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9564 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-28 Year-2024 Thana- SACHIVALAYA District- Patna

¶3

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

¶4

Amarjeet Kumar S/O Lal Mohan Sao R/O Village- Khajuri, P.O - Khajuri, P.S - Konch, District - Gaya, Bihar

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar Bihar

¶8

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

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

¶10

with

¶11

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 10642 of 2025

¶12

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-28 Year-2024 Thana- SACHIVALAYA District- Patna

¶13

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

¶14

Rahul Kumar S/O Arun Sharma @ Arun Mistri R/O - Village- Hari Makhadumpur, P.S - Alipur, District - Gaya, Bihar

¶15

Sanjay Kumar S/O Late Rajnath Yadav R/O Village- Mardua, P.S- Tekari, Distt.- Gaya, Bihar.

¶16

Dilip Kumar S/O Satendra Yadav R/O Village- Mardua, P.S- Tekari, Distt.Gaya, Bihar.

¶17

Kamlesh Kumar S/O Awadesh Yadav R/O Village- Paras Bigha, P.S- Konch, Distt.- Gaya, Bihar.

¶18

Ajay Kumar S/O Ramkripal Yadav R/O Village- Paras Bigha, P.S- Konch, Distt.- Gaya, Bihar.

¶19

... ... Petitioner/s

¶20

Versus

¶21

The State of Bihar Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 9564 of 2025) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate Mr.Ashok Kumar, Advocate Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Jitendra Kumar Singh, APP (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 10642 of 2025) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate Mr.Ashok Kumar, Advocate Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Rajendra Prasad Nat, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER

¶22

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶23

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9564 of 2025(3) dt.18-07-2025 2/4

¶24

3 18-07-2025 Heard Mr. N.K. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, learned APP for the State.

¶25

The petitioners are in judicial custody in connection with Sachivalaya P.S. Case No. 28 of 2024 for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code lodged on 15.03.20241 by the informant, Rinki Devi.

¶26

As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that her son was tied to the pole in the MLC quarter and beaten to death by the accused persons. Accordingly, the FIR.

¶27

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submit that the main role has been attributed to the Guard of Shanti Company namely Mukesh Yadav with additional roles to these petitioners who were serving as labourers of the said company. It is his further submission that the allegation of having tied the deceased and beating is attributed to Mukesh Yadav and these petitioners were arrested when they were found to be moving in suspicious condition. They have already suffered by being in custody since 16.03.2024 and are ready to face the trial which they shall be attending diligently.

¶28

Learned APP opposes the prayer stating that on the allegation of theft, an innocent was brutally assaulted which led

¶29

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9564 of 2025(3) dt.18-07-2025 3/4

¶30

to the death of Krishna Kumar.

¶31

Having heard the parties and taking into account the aforesaid facts, the main role is attributed to Mukesh Yadav, the allegation is that these petitioners were also serving as labourers and since the materials of construction company were repeatedly being stolen, the deceased was thrashed, they have remained in custody since long, having completed more than one year and an have undertaken to diligently appear in trial, this Court is inclined to extend them the privilege of bail with conditions.

¶32

Let the petitioners be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) each with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned J.M. 1st Class, Patna, in connection with Sachivalaya P.S. Case No. 28 of 2024 subject to the following conditions:

¶33

(i) one of the bailor should be the family member of the petitioners who shall provide official document to show his/her bona fide;

¶34

(ii) the petitioners shall appear on each and every date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of their bail bond by the Trial Court itself;

¶35

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9564 of 2025(3) dt.18-07-2025 4/4

¶36

(iii) the petitioners shall appear before the concerned police station every month till conclusion of the trial to mark their attendance;

¶37

(iv) the petitioners shall in no way try to induce or promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds;

¶38

(v) the petitioners shall desist from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds.

¶39

(Rajiv Roy, J)

¶40

Ravi/-

¶41

U

Rahul Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Kumar 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

Vijay Saw, Vs The State of Bihar

Satyendra Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Anwari Begum Vs The State of Bihar

Manoj Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Sonu Ali Vs The State of Bihar

Amarjeet Kumar Vs The State of Bihar