Patna High Court
Deepak KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court held that, based on the confessional statements and other evidence, the petitioner was implicated in the firing and therefore bail could not be granted at this stage.
Summary
The petitioner, Deepak Kumar, sought bail in a case registered under Sections 103(1) and 61(2) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act and Section 27 of the Arms Act for allegedly firing at a victim who later died. The prosecution relied on the testimony of an informant and confessional statements of co‑accused, which implicated the petitioner as one of the shooters alongside Sagar and Siddharth. The petitioner argued that he was innocent, that the confessional statements were inadmissible, and that no eyewitness directly identified him as the assailant. The court examined the material, including the confessional statements and post‑mortem report, and concluded that the petitioner had participated in the firing. Consequently, the court refused bail, directing that the petitioner may re‑apply after six months if the trial remains pending and ordering the trial court to expedite the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite allegations of participation in the shooting under Sections 103(1), 61(2) of the BNS Act and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
- Whether confessional statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act can be considered for bail purposes in a non‑NDPS case.
- Whether the absence of a direct eyewitness identification precludes denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 103(1), 61(2)
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act — s. 67
Subjects
- bail
- Arms Act
- confessional statement
- NDPS Act
- shooting
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13585 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-553 Year-2025 Thana- ARA NAGAR District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Deepak Kumar Son of Shiv Balak Prasad Resident of Mohalla- Jawahar Tola,
P.S.- Ara Nawada, District- Bhojpur at Ara
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar No. 2, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Vishal Vikram Rana, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
CAV ORDER
6 24-06-2026 Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner,
learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the Informant.
2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection
with Ara Town P.S. Case No. 553 of 2025 registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 103(1) and 61(2) of the BNS
and under Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on
05.09.2025 at 9 PM after having meals, the informant along
with his own brother Om Prakash and cousin Arun Kumar Singh
was smoking cigarette. At that time, one Sumit who was
returning after completing his duty at Dr. Jitendra Kumar
Singh’s Hospital and entered in the lane, they heard the sound of
two firings. As they entered in the lane, they saw Deepak Kumar
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13585 of 2026(6) dt.24-06-2026
2/6
(petitioner), Bambam Kumar @ Uttam were running from the
place brandishing the pistol. Two other persons were also with
them. Sumit succumbed to the injuries.
4. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and he has
committed no offence. From perusal of the FIR, it is clear that in
this case, nobody is the eye-witness and the informant, his
brother and his cousin have only seen the petitioner along with
other co-accused persons running away from the place of
occurrence brandishing arms. Learned Senior counsel for the
petitioner has also submitted that during the course of
investigation, all the accused persons have given their
confessional statement and they have stated in stereotyped
manner that the petitioner was indulged in reiki and have also
stated that the fire was made by Sagar and Siddharth. It has
further been submitted that in this case charge-sheet has been
filed and in CDR also, the location of mobiles of this petitioner
and the co-accused persons were found at the place of
occurrence and for this, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner
has relied on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported
in (2022) vol. 12 SCC 633. Learned Senior counsel for the
petitioner has referred Para ‘12’ of the said judgment and has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13585 of 2026(6) dt.24-06-2026
3/6
submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court has held in Para ‘12’
which are being hereunder:-
“12. It has been held in clear terms in
Tofan Singh v. State of T.N., that a
confessional statement recorded under
Section 67 of the NDPS Act will
remain inadmissible in the trial of an
offence under the NDPS Act. In the
teeth of the aforesaid decision, the
arrests made by the petitioner NCB, on
the basis of the confession/voluntary
statements of the respondents or the
co-accused under Section 67 of the
NDPS Act, cannot form the basis for
overturning the impugned orders
releasing them on bail. The CDR
details of some of the accused or the
allegations of tampering of evidence
on the part of one of the respondents is
an aspect that will be examined at the
stage of trial. For the aforesaid reason,
this Court is not inclined to interfere in
the orders dated 16-9-2019, 14-1-2020,
16-1-2020, 19-12-2019 and 20-1-2020
passed in SLP (Crl.) No. arising out of
Diary No. 22702 of 2020, SLP (Crl.)
No. 1454 of 2021, SLP (Crl.) No. 1465
of 2021, SLPs (Crl.) Nos. 1773-74 of
2021 and SLP (Crl.) No. 2080 of 2021
respectively. The impugned orders are,
accordingly, upheld and the special
leave petitions filed by the petitioner
NCB seeking cancellation of bail
granted to the respective respondents,
are dismissed as meritless.”
5. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has
further submitted that in this case even the father-in-law of the
deceased has given statement before police and he has also not
named this petitioner as an assailant. Learned Senior counsel for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13585 of 2026(6) dt.24-06-2026
4/6
the petitioner has also submitted that this petitioner has been
framed in this case as an accused as he is a witness in Ara town
P.S. Case No. 879 of 2022.
6. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has also
submitted that from perusal of the postmortem report also it will
transpire that the deceased has received following ante mortem
injuries:-
“Firearm entry wound of size 1.5 cm X 1.5 cm right side
thigh found inside. Exit wound of size 2 cm X 1.5 cm back side right
thigh. Firearm entry wound of size 1 cm X 1.5 cm on right side
cheek. Exit wound of size 1.5 cm X 1.5 cm back side of skull”.
7. According to the doctors conducting autopsy of the
deceased, the death was due to firearm injury in the skull and
right thigh leads to neurogenic and hypovolemic shock leads to
his death.
8. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has also
submitted that postmortem report goes to show that only two
gunshot injuries are there on the person of the deceased and
from perusal of the confessional statement of the co-accused
persons and this petitioner, it is clear that there are two
assailants, namely, Sagar and Siddharth and only role attributed
to the petitioner is that he has made reiki. It is lastly submitted
that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 11.09.2025.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13585 of 2026(6) dt.24-06-2026
5/6
9. Countering this, learned APP for the State and
learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for
bail and have submitted that the petitioner is also one of the
assailants in the present case. It is submitted that during
investigation, the confessional statements of the accused
persons, including the present petitioner, have been recorded.
From the said confessional statements, it has transpired that all
the accused persons have consistently stated that the petitioner
had also fired at the deceased along with co-accused Sagar and
Siddharth. It is further submitted that even the petitioner, in his
confessional statement, has admitted his participation in the
occurrence. Thus, a specific overt act of firing is attributed to
the petitioner as well along with Sagar and Siddharth. They have
further submitted that considering the nature and gravity of
accusation assigned to the petitioner, he is not entitled to the
privilege of bail.
10. So far as parity of this case with the case of co-
accused, namely, Bambam is concerned, there is allegation of
reiki against him and no allegation of firing, whereas the
allegation against the present petitioner is that he had fired at the
deceased besides making reiki.
11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13585 of 2026(6) dt.24-06-2026
6/6
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court
finds that allegation of firing has been attributed to the petitioner
as well along with two other co-accused persons. It appears
from the materials collected during investigation, including the
confessional statements of the accused persons, that the
petitioner had also participated in the firing along with co-
accused Sagar and Siddharth. Considering the nature of
allegation, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of bail
to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer for bail
stands rejected.
12. However, the petitioner may renew his prayer for
bail after six months if the trial is not concluded.
13. Learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Shubham/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 16.06.2026
Uploading Date 24.06.2026
Transmission Date 24.06.2026.
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.