Patna High Court
Rupesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail could not be granted to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Rupesh Kumar, sought anticipatory bail after being named an accused in a murder case (IPC sections 302 and 201) arising from a headless body discovered in 2020. The FIR was lodged on 17 July 2020, and the investigation identified the petitioner only in 2022, prompting his bail application. The petitioner argued that he had not been previously named or summoned, while the State contended that the gruesome nature of the crime warranted denial of bail. The court examined whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Considering the seriousness of the offence and the fact that the petitioner was now an accused, the court found no sufficient ground to grant bail. Consequently, the anticipatory bail application was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC in a case involving murder (IPC 302) and concealment of evidence (IPC 201).
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438
- Indian Penal Code — s. 201, 302
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- murder
- IPC 302
- IPC 201
- Criminal Procedure Code
- bail denial
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13818 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-101 Year-2020 Thana- JANKINAGAR District- Purnia
======================================================
Rupesh Kumar Son of Dukha Yadav Resident of Village -Garhiya, ward No
10, PS -Kumarkhand, Dist- Madhepura
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bambahadur Jha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shantanu Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
3 24-06-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Jankinagar P.S. Case No. 101 of 2020 for the
offence under sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code
lodged on 17.07.2020 by the informant, Baleshwar Tatma.
3. The FIR came to be lodged on 17.07.2020 by the
chowkidar of the Jankinager Police Station recording that a
headless body was found near the canal and upon information,
the chowkidar went there and found the said body with injuries
on it and without any head. This led to the FIR.
4. The investigation took place, the accused named,
and accordingly, the judicial process rolled on. Subsequently,
the name of the petitioner also cropped up in the year 2022. This
necessitated filing of the anticipatory bail application.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13818 of 2026(3) dt.24-06-2026
2/2
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
earlier, he was not named nor sent up but later, the Court took
cognizance of the matter as a result whereof he has presented
himself with the application for anticipatory bail.
6. Learned APP opposes the prayer submitting that a
headless body was found, the brutality can be seen from the fact
that the head was missing. The investigation/facts of the case
took the matter to the doors of the petitioner in the year 2022
itself but he choose to take his own time in filing the
anticipatory bail application.
7. Considering the submission of the parties as also
the kind of case that has come and subsequently, petitioner has
been found to be an accused, in that background, it would be
appropriate that he seeks bail.
8. The anticipatory bail application stands rejected.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Adnan/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.