SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 3670

PATNA HIGH COURT
MR. PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH, J
Prince Kumar @ Shubham – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3246 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellant/s: Mr. Gopal Govind Mishra
For the Respondent/s: Mr. Binay Krishna, Spl.P.P.

Bail granted based on insufficient evidence and long custody duration.

Headnote:This appeal was filed against the order dated 21.05.2025,wherein the prayer for regular bail of the appellant was rejected. It was contended that the informant was not an eye witness and no substantial evidence linked the appellant to the crime, leading to concerns of wrongful accusation. The court countered the prosecution's claims by analyzing the lack of evidence and witness testimonies. Considering the nature of the charge and time in custody, the appeal was granted, allowing bail under specified conditions.

Table of Content
1. lack of evidence linking the appellant to the crime. (Para 4 , 5)
2. opposition to bail application based on accusations. (Para 6)
3. court grants bail considering custody duration. (Para 7)

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER

4 22-01-2026 Despite valid service of notice, none appears on behalf of the respondent no. 2.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the State.

3. This appeal has been filed against the order dated

21.05.2025 passed by learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST 2024 registered under Sections 302 , 120B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code , Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3 (2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act , whereby the prayer for regular bail of appellant has been rejected.

4. As per prosecution case, informant suspects that this appellant, along with other accused persons, killed his father. Informant alleges that his father had love affair with co- accused Geeta Devi, who happens to be mother of this appellant and had lodged a case against father of informant in which father of informant was behind the bar and on the basis of compromise, father of informant came out of jail and as per settlement, co-accused Geeta Devi was given a new house but thereafter, Geeta Devi and her sons, including this appellant, demanded Rs. 11,00,000/- and also threatened to kill father of informant.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that from bare perusal of the F.I.R. it is apparent that informant is not an eye witness of the occurrence and due of old dispute, suspicion has been raised against the appellant. During course of investigation, none of the witnesses have claimed to have seen the occurrence or seen this appellant committing the offence. There is no allegation of abuse by caste name against the appellant. Appellant is in custody since 28.08.2024. Charge-

sheet has already been submitted.

6. Learned Spl. Public Prosecutor for the State vehemently opposed the bail application.

7. Considering the nature of accusation and period of custody, this Court sets aside the impugned order and directs the release of above named appellant on bail on furnishing bail- bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Exclusive Special No. 80 of 2024.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top