CR. MISC./41268/2026 of Raj Kumar Sah @ Rajkumar Vs The State of Bihar on 17 August 2026

ORAL ORDER

17-08-2026 Heard learned Advocate for the petitioners and learned Advocate for the State.

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Ghorasahan P.S. Case No.332 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023.

3. The prosecution case alleges that on 04.08.2024, the son of the informant, namely, Aftab Alam, received a phone call from co-accused Rohit Kumar, whereafter he left his house. Subsequently, the informant came to know through the villagers that some unknown miscreants had assaulted and killed his son and thereafter fled from the place of occurrence in a Scorpio vehicle bearing registration No. HR-26-CA-6435. It is further alleged that co-accused Rohit Kumar was apprehended by the local persons while attempting to flee, and upon being interrogated, he disclosed the names of the other co-accused persons allegedly involved in the occurrence.

4. Learned Advocate for the petitioners, taking this Court through the contents of the FIR, submitted that, on a plain reading thereof, it would appear that four persons had arrived at the place of occurrence in the aforesaid Scorpio vehicle and, thereafter, co-accused Rohit Kumar was apprehended by the villagers while fleeing from the spot. It is submitted that the apprehended accused disclosed before the villagers the names of the persons allegedly involved in the killing of the deceased. Accordingly, the names of co-accused Vicky Kumar, Rahul Kumar and Chhotu @ Vishal were arrayed as accused persons in the case. Learned Advocate further argued that there was no whisper in the FIR regarding the complicity of the present petitioners in the alleged crime. However, subsequently, in the confessional statement of co-accused Rohit Kumar recorded before the police, the names of the present petitioners also surfaced, alleging their involvement in causing the death of the deceased. No specific role has been attributed to the petitioners, nor has the prosecution disclosed the manner or mode in which they allegedly participated in the occurrence. There is neither any eyewitness to the occurrence nor any independent witness who has stated that the petitioners were seen near the place of occurrence or their complicity had otherwise surfaced during investigation, save and except the confessional statement of co- accused Rohit Kumar. The petitioners have been falsely implicated merely because they are the brother and brother-in- law of the main accused, namely, Rohit Kumar. The police had also recorded the statement of the wife of the deceased, namely, Nazni Khatun, but she too did not allege any complicity of the present petitioners in the commission of the crime. Moreover, the petitioners have clean antecedents and undertake to fully cooperate with the proceedings of the Court.

5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the names of the petitioners have surfaced in the confessional statement of the prime accused, Rohit Kumar, which suggests their involvement in the alleged offence.

6. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned Advocates for the respective parties and taking note of the fact that save and except the confessional statement of co- accused Rohit Kumar, there is no other incriminating circumstance on record which prima facie points towards the complicity of the present petitioners in the alleged crime, besides the apprehended accused allegedly disclosed before the villagers the names of the persons said to be involved in the occurrence, where the names of the present petitioners did not surface, besides their fair antecedent, let the above named petitioners, be released on bail, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned A.C.J.M.-III, Sikrahana at Dhaka, East Champaran in connection with Ghorasahan P.S. Case No.332 of 2024, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, with further condition that one of the bailors shall be the own/close family members of the petitioners.

rohit/- (Harish Kumar, J) U T