Dismissed¶23

Ranglal Kumar @ Jhunna v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC2 Sept 2025CR. MISC./16561/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court, Criminal Miscellaneous No. 16561 of 2025, oral order dated 02-09-2025 by Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.: bail prayer of Ranglal Kumar @ Jhunna (named in FIR, custody since 14.04.2023) in Akodhigola P.S. Case No. 78 of 2023, District Rohtas (Section 302 read with 34 IPC — fatal scissor stabbing of the informant's 14-year-old minor son) rejected on the ground that the allegation of fatal physical assault by using scissor is available specifically against him; petitioner remains in custody about two years and four months and the trial court is directed to conclude the trial preferably within nine months.

What did the court decide?

No bail granted; learned trial court directed to conclude the trial, preferably within a period of nine months from the date of receiving of a copy of this order. ¶23

Ranglal Kumar @ Jhunna Vs The State of Bihar — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Patna HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No bail granted; learned trial court directed to conclude the trial, preferably within a period of nine months from the date of receiving of a copy of this order.

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether bail should be granted to the accused/petitioner, who is named in the FIR, in connection with Akodhigola P.S. Case No. 78 of 2023 registered for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶11

Court's answer

Bail rejected: taking note of the factual submissions, as the allegation of a fatal physical assault by using a scissor is available specifically against this petitioner, the prayer of bail stands rejected herewith, for the present.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

Since the petitioner has remained in custody for about two years and four months, the learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial, preferably within a period of nine months from the date of receiving a copy of this order.

¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail rejected. Ranglal Kumar @ Jhunna, named in the FIR and in custody since 14.04.2023, sought bail in Akodhigola P.S. Case No. 78 of 2023 (Thana Akhodhigola, District Rohtas), registered for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the FIR alleging that he stabbed the informant's minor son (aged about 14 years) with scissors, causing his death. Counsel argued that no motive was attributed, the alleged assault was not repeated without intervening circumstance so as to show intention to cause death, investigation stood completed with charge-sheet filed, and the petitioner was on bail in one other criminal case; the Additional Public Prosecutor countered that the informant eyewitnessed the brutal scissor assault on his minor son and that the postmortem injuries corroborate the informant's version as to manner of assault and nature of weapon. Finding the allegation of fatal physical assault by using scissor available specifically against this petitioner, the court rejected the prayer of bail for the present and, noting custody of about two years and four months, directed the learned trial court to conclude the trial preferably within nine months from the date of receiving a copy of the order.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16561 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-78 Year-2023 Thana- AKHODHIGOLA District- Rohtas

¶3

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

¶4

Ranglal Kumar @ Jhunna, Son of Raghunath Singh @ Chhathu, Resident of Village - Madhurampur, P.S. - Akodhigola, District - Rohtas

¶5

... ... Petitioner

¶6

Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Umeshanand Pandit, Advocate Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anant Kumar 1, APP ======================================================

¶7

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA ORAL ORDER

¶8

6 02-09-2025

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶10

Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶11

The accused/petitioner seeks bail in connection

¶12

with Akodhigola P.S. Case No.78 of 2023 registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’).

¶13

The accused/petitioner is named in the FIR and is in custody since 14.04.2023.

¶14

As per FIR, the minor son of the informant aged about 14 years was stabbed by scissors point by this petitioner causing his death.

¶15

It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for

¶16

petitioner that no motive has been attributed behind the

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16561 of 2025(6) dt.02-09-2025 2/3

¶18

present occurrence. It is submitted that the assault as alleged was not repeated, without having any intervening circumstance and, therefore, it cannot be said that petitioner was under intention to cause death. It is submitted that that due to certain local provocative issue, the present occurrence took place and, therefore, the lodging of FIR under Section 302 of IPC is completely bad in eyes of law. While concluding argument, it is submitted that investigation of this case is already completed, for which, charge-sheet has been submitted and, as such, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence. The petitioner found involved in one more criminal case, where he is on bail.

¶19

Learned APP for the State while opposing the prayer of bail submitted that the informant is the eye-witness of the occurrence before whom, his minor son was brutally assaulted by this petitioner using scissor. It is submitted that the injuries as mentioned in postmortem report also corroborate the version of informant being an eye-witness of the occurrence qua manner of assault and nature of weapon

¶20

used.

¶21

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16561 of 2025(6) dt.02-09-2025 3/3

¶22

In view of aforesaid factual submissions and by

¶23

taking note of fact, as allegation qua fatal physical assault by using scissor is available specifically against this petitioner, accordingly, the prayer of bail of petitioner stands rejected herewith, for the present.

¶24

However, as the petitioner remains in custody for about two years and four months, learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial, preferably within a period of nine months from the date of receiving of a copy of this order.

¶25

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)

¶26

Sanjeet/-

Ranglal Kumar @ Jhunna v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranglal Kumar @ Jhunna 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

Mithlesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Satyendra Kumar Chaudhary @ Satendra Chaudhary Vs The State of Bihar

Mirtunjay Yadav @ Kumar Gaurav Vs The State of Bihar

Dipak Kumar Suretabh @ Deepak Kumar Shuretab Vs The State of Bihar

Sudhar Yadav @ Sughar Yadav @ Sughar Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Nagendra Chaudhary Vs The State of Bihar