Patna High Court
Ankit Kumar @ Ankit GaniversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The appeal is dismissed and bail is not granted to the appellant.
Summary
The appellant, Ankit Kumar, appealed against the denial of bail in a murder‑conspiracy case (Sections 302, 120(B)/34 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act) where the informant’s son was killed. The prosecution alleged that the appellant conspired with co‑accused and acted as a ‘liner’, relying on confessional statements of co‑accused and witness testimony. The appellant contended innocence, arguing that his name surfaced only from a co‑accused’s confession and that no SC/ST offence was established. The State and the informant opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the offence, the advanced stage of trial, and precedent discouraging bail in such cases. The High Court, noting the gravity of the charges and the trial’s progress, refused bail and dismissed the appeal, directing the trial court to expedite the proceedings, with a provision to re‑apply for bail after three months if the trial remains pending.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the appellant in a murder‑conspiracy case at an advanced stage of trial.
- Whether the appellant’s alleged involvement under the SC/ST Act is substantiated.
- Whether confessional statements of co‑accused provide sufficient basis to deny bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120(B), 302, 34
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- conspiracy
- IPC
- Arms Act
- SC/ST Act
- high court
- appeal
- trial stage
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2854 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-141 Year-2024 Thana- KATIHAR NAGAR District- Katihar
======================================================
Ankit Kumar @ Ankit Gani S/o Sanjeev Kumar Gani R/o Mohalla- Rajendra
Gram, Durgasthan, P.S.- Katihar (Nagar), District- Katihar
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Dinesh Paswan S/o Late Gorelal Paswan R/o Village- Driver Tola, P.S.-
Katihar Nagar, District- Katihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Balkrishna Mishra, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, SPP
For the Informant : Ms. Moni Kumari, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
5 05-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Special
Public Prosecutor for the State, learned counsel for the
informant/Respondent No. 2 and perused the case diary.
2. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant
against the order dated 17.05.2025 passed by learned District
and Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge SC/ST,
Katihar whereby the prayer for bail of the appellant in
connection with Katihar (Nagar) P.S. Case No. 141 of 2024
under Sections 302, 120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 27 of the Arms Act was rejected.
3. Prosecution case, in short, is that, informant’s son was
shot dead and one accused was caught. It is further alleged that
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2854 of 2025(5) dt.05-02-2026
2/4
a conspiracy for murder was hatched by the appellant along with
other co-accused persons through hired killers.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the
present case. Charge-sheet has been submitted in this case.
Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the appellant
is known to the informant and thus, it is admitted, as per the FIR
that there is no allegation of firing on the son of the informant. It
is further submitted that name of the appellant has transpired in
this case on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused,
namely, Bhaskar Jha and the same has got no evidentiary value,
wherein appellant’s role has surfaced as being liner. Learned
counsel for the appellant further submits that the appellant has
not taken the caste name of the informant in public view. Hence,
no offence under the provisions of SC/ST Act is made out
against him. The appellant has no intention to disgrace the
image of the informant in public view. The appellant is in
custody since 18.02.2025 and has got five criminal antecedents
in which he is on bail.
5. Learned Special P.P. for the State and the informant
have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the
appellant and submits that the allegation upon the appellant that
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2854 of 2025(5) dt.05-02-2026
3/4
he participated in the murder of the deceased along with other
co-accused persons. From perusal of confessional statement of
co-accused persons, it appears that the appellant along with
other co-accused persons conspired amongst themselves to kill
the deceased. From perusal of paragraph nos. 124 and 143 of the
case diary, it appears that the appellant along with others were
performing as liner. All the witnesses have supported the case of
prosecution. Hence, the appellant does not deserve the privilege
of bail. Other co-accused has been granted bail by this Court
vide order dated 03.07.2025, passed in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 735
of 2025. Learned counsel for the informant submits that two (2)
out of four (4) prosecution witnesses have been examined in this
case. Learned informant’s counsel has further relied upon a
decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2024 SCC
Online SC 3539 (X. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.), wherein in
paragraph No.14, Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under:
“14. Ordinarily in serious
offences like rape, murder, dacoity,
etc., once the trial commences and the
prosecution starts examining its
witnesses, the Court be it the Trial
Court or the High Court should be
loath in entertaining the bail
application of the accused.”
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2854 of 2025(5) dt.05-02-2026
4/4
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of
the case, specific allegation as also nature and gravity of the
offence and trial is at advance stage, this Court is not inclined to
grant bail to the appellant at this juncture.
7. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. The trial
Court is directed to expedite the trial. However, if the trial is not
concluded within a period of three months from the date of
receipt/production, the appellant will have liberty to renew his
prayer for bail in the Court below.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Raj Kishore/-
U T
Checking your session…