Patna High Court
Nitin Kumar @ Nitin PatelversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court declined to grant bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The Patna High Court considered the bail application of Nitin Kumar (alias Nitin Patel), who is charged under Sections 103(1) and 61(2) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act for a shooting that led to the death of an informant’s husband. The FIR alleges that the accused fired at the victim and that the petitioner was part of a conspiracy to kill. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated and not the shooter, seeking regular bail after a prior anticipatory bail plea was rejected. The State highlighted the petitioner’s ten prior criminal cases and the risk of absconding or tampering with evidence. Weighing the seriousness of the offences, the conspiracy allegation and the petitioner’s criminal antecedents, the Court refused bail. Consequently, the petition for bail was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner given the nature of the offences and his criminal antecedents
- Whether the petitioner poses a risk of absconding or tampering with evidence
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 — s. 103(1), 61(2)
Subjects
- bail
- anticipatory bail
- conspiracy
- criminal antecedents
- arms act
- murder
- section 103
- section 61
- section 27
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12616 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-90 Year-2025 Thana- CHAUTHAM District- Khagaria
======================================================
Nitin Kumar @ Nitin Patel S/o Arun Singh R/o Village- Agrahan, P.S -
Chautham, District - Khagaria
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shubham, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Anzarul Haque Sahara, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 10-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 103(1) and 61(2) of the
BNS, 2023 as well as Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is in custody since 08.12.2025. It is further submitted
that the informant alleges that on 09.04.2024, at about 07:30
p.m., she along with her husband were coming back from her
parental home on a motorcycle when all of a sudden one
motorcycle came from behind and dashed the motorcycle of the
informant on account of which the husband of the informant fell
when all the accused persons started firing. It is further alleged
that the informant identified Ashish, Sonu and Ritesh all
resident of Medini Nagar. It is next alleged that Ashish shot the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12616 of 2026(2) dt.10-04-2026
2/3
husband of the informant on his temple causing injury and
thereafter she saw Bijal Singh at the place of occurrence on
hearing the sound of firing and thereafter informant’s son and
her nephew came from the warehouse and took the informant's
husband to Nectar Hospital for treatment where he died during
the course of treatment. It is also alleged that prior to this
occurrence, Uday Singh and Raj Kumari Devi had threatened to
kill the informant and her husband many a time and, thus,
informant suspects that all the accused persons conspired to kill
her husband.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is further submitted that from perusal of the
allegation as alleged in the F.I.R., it would manifest that
petitioner is not alleged to have fired at the husband of the
informant but then has been made an accused with an allegation
that in the conspiracy even petitioner was involved.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner fairly submits that petitioner has antecedent of ten
cases on which learned A.P.P. points out that earlier when the
petitioner had approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail
by filing Cr. Misc. No. 44896 of 2025 and the same came to be
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12616 of 2026(2) dt.10-04-2026
3/3
rejected by an order dated 11.09.2025 but in the order dated
11.09.2025 in Cr. Misc. No. 44896 of 2025, it was recorded that
petitioner had antecedent of five cases but now it is being
submitted that petitioner has antecedent of ten cases which
amply demonstrates that petitioner on the earlier occasion when
he was seeking anticipatory bail had not approached the Court
with clean hands. It is further submitted that since name of the
petitioner also finds recorded in the FIR though not as an
assailant but as a conspirator but if privilege of regular bail is
granted to the petitioner, the petitioner may abscond or try to
tamper with the evidence since he is a person with ten criminal
antecedents.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
A.P.P. for the State, the Court is not inclined to release the
petitioner on bail in connection with Choutham P.S. Case No. 90
of 2025 pending in the Court of learned District & Additional
Sessions Judge-III, Khagaria/Successor Court.
7. Hence, the prayer for bail is rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…