Patna High Court
Mukesh Kumar @ Deepanshu KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner Mukesh Kumar sought anticipatory bail after learning that he might be arrested in a murder case. The FIR dated 03‑06‑2025 recorded the disappearance and death of Manish Kumar, and later charges were added under sections 140(3), 103(1), 238, 61(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S. The petitioner argued he was not named in the FIR and that his name only appeared because co‑accused Ankit Kumar and Rajesh Kumar gave confessional statements implicating him, with no other material evidence. The State opposed the bail, contending that the confessional statements establish his participation in the murder. The Court examined the gravity of the offence, the lack of independent evidence against the petitioner, and the reliance on confessional statements, and concluded that the circumstances warranted denial of anticipatory bail. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the only basis for the petitioner’s implication is the confessional statements of co‑accused.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 103(1), 140(3), 238, 3(5), 61(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- murder
- confessional statement
- FIR
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12945 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-186 Year-2025 Thana- ROH District- Nawada
======================================================
Mukesh Kumar @ Deepanshu Kumar S/o- Kailash Mahto @ Kailash Nath
Village- Mahrawan PS- Roh Distt- Nawada
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Vibhuti Ranjan Sonvadra, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 23-04-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 140(3) of
the B.N.S. and later on, Sections 103(1), 238, 61(2) and 3(5) of
the B.N.S. were added.
3. As per F.I.R., on 03.06.2025 at about 05:00 PM,
informant’s son, namely Manish Kumar, had gone out of his
house but he did not return. The informant tried to contact on
mobile phone but it was switched off. Later, dead-body of
informant’s son was found.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12945 of 2026(2) dt.23-04-2026
2/2
committed no offence. Petitioner is not named in the F.I.R..
Name of petitioner transpired in this case during investigation,
merely on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused
persons. Save and except confessional statement, there is no
other material on record to show the complicity of this petitioner
in the alleged offence. Petitioner claims clean antecedents.
5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has
vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to
the petitioner and submitted that name of petitioner transpired in
this case during investigation on the basis of confessional
statement of co-accused Ankit Kumar and Rajesh Kumar who
have stated that they, along with this petitioner, committed
murder of the deceased.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, gravity of offence and materials that have surfaced during
investigation, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.