Pappu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amresh Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Satya Nand Shukla, APP ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶11

7 06-04-2026

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶13

APP for the State.

¶14

2 . The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Garkha P.S. Case No. 334 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 323, 341/34 of the IPC.

¶15

3 . As per the prosecution case, the husband of the informant and her brother-in-law were sitting at their door steps, in the meanwhile, the petitioner arrived there and started abusing and assaulting the informant’s brother-in-law Akhilesh Ray. When the husband of the informant tried to intervene, the petitioner took out a knife and hit him on the back and arm. Thereafter, the petitioner is also alleged to have stabbed the informant’s brother-in-law with the knife which hit on his chest

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54471 of 2025(7) dt.06-04-2026 2/3

¶17

causing serious injury. Upon alarm being raised, when the informant went there, the petitioner and co-accused assaulted the informant and her family members. It has further been alleged that the informant’s husband and brother-in-law were taken to nearby hospital for treatment, where her husband was declared dead.

¶18

4 . Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. It has further been submitted that there is land disputed between the parties and they are agnates. It has also been submitted that the informant does not appear to be an eyewitness. Moreover, on the alleged date of occurrence, the petitioner was not in his village rather it is more plausible that he did not participate in the incident, as he was undergoing treatment at AIIMS Delhi at that time. Additionally, the postmortem report does not support the prosecution case. Lastly, it has been submitted that the petitioner has one criminal antecedent and is in custody since 04.09.2024.

¶19

5 . Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

¶20

6. Having perused the record and considered the submission of the parties, the petitioner is alleged to have

¶21

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54471 of 2025(7) dt.06-04-2026 3/3

¶22

specifically assaulted the husband of the informant as a result of which he died during the course of treatment. The petitioner is the sole assailant of the deceased. Moreover, the status report of the trial court, which was earlier called for by order dated 19.02.2026, indicates that the trial is at its fag end wherein four out of five witnesses have been examined.

¶23

7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstance of the case, the allegation against the petitioner and the trial being at its fag end, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and the same is hereby rejected.

¶24

8. The learned trial court is further directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same at the earliest.

¶25

(Praveen Kumar, J)

¶26

Jyoti/-

¶27

U T

Pappu Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pappu 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

Sangeeta Kumari @ Sangeeta Devi Vs The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Dept.of Home, govt. of Bihar, Main Secretariat

Uttam Kumar @ Uttam Kumar Bharti Vs The State of Bihar

Muskan Vs the State of Bihar

Sadhu @ Pradeep Paswan @ Manjeet Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Urmila Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Waquar Rajja Yunus Vs The State of Bihar