Patna High Court
AMARENDRA KUMAR @ CHHOTKUNversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court granted bail to the petitioners subject to a bond and the condition of surrender if DNA testing confirms the body as that of the deceased.
Summary
Amarendra Kumar and Saroja Devi were arrested in a murder case under Sections 137(2), 103(1) and 3(5) of the B.N.S., based largely on confessional statements of co‑accused and a post‑mortem report showing skull fractures. The petitioners contended that they were falsely implicated, arguing that the skeletal remains recovered could not be positively identified as the deceased and that no other incriminating evidence existed against them. The State opposed bail, relying on the confessional statements and the forensic findings. The High Court examined the material, noting the lack of conclusive DNA identification of the body, and decided to grant bail conditionally. The court ordered the petitioners to furnish a bail bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties and to remain in custody pending the DNA report, after which they must surrender if the body is identified as the victim.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to the accused pending DNA verification of the skeletal remains
- Whether the confessional statements and post‑mortem report alone justify denial of bail
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 103(1), 137(2), 3(5)
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- confessional statement
- postmortem report
- DNA testing
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13994 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-541 Year-2025 Thana- GHOSI District- Jehanabad
======================================================
Amarendra Kumar @ Chhotkun, S/O Dinesh Prasad, R/O Vill.- Tadwan
Math, P.S.- Ghosi (Okari), Dist.- Jahanabad.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 22218 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-541 Year-2025 Thana- GHOSI District- Jehanabad
======================================================
Saroja Devi, Wife of Nawal Prasad, Resident of Village - Tadwan Math,
Police Station - Ghoshi (Okari), District - Jehanabad.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 13994 of 2026)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, APP
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 22218 of 2026)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jay Ram Prasad, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
4 18-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners have prayed for bail in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 137(2),
103(1) and 3(5) of B.N.S.
3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13994 of 2026(4) dt.18-04-2026
2/5
husband of the informant has gone to work in Aristo Companay.
He has returned from Patna to his home. At 08:00 P.M., the
informant has called him and they had talk. After some time, the
mobile got switched off. He was searched but could not be find.
The application was filed on 11.10.2025.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners has submitted that petitioners are innocent and have
committed no offence. They have been falsely implicated in this
case. Learned counsel for the petitioner ha submitted that the
F.I.R. was lodged against unknown miscreants. During course of
investigation, one Saroja Devi has given her statement in para
‘7’ of the case diary wherein she has stated that she had talk
with the deceased at 05:00 P.M. and after that at 07:43 P.M.
regarding marriage of her daughter. During course of
investigation, one Arvind and Saroja Devi have given their
confessional statement and in confessional statement, it has
come that at 07:30 P.M., the deceased met the accused persons
at chhotki Math and he was being assaulted by Amrendra
Kumar with khanti on his head due to which he fell down. After
that, Saroja Devi and Amrandra assaulted with Khanti
repeatedly and the dead body was thrown in paddy field. It has
further been stated that khanti blow was given repeatedly on the
parietal region of the head and the bike was thrown in a ditch.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13994 of 2026(4) dt.18-04-2026
3/5
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the
dead body was recovered on 19.10.2025. Thereafter, the
postmortem was conducted. From perusal of the postmortem
report, it transpires that it was only remnant of skeleton. There
was a skeletonized human body with blackish soft tissue
sparsely present at both feet. Maggots were crawling all over
the remnant bones. Regarding ante-mortem injuries, the doctor
conducting autopsy of the dead body has recorded that there was
‘Y’ shaped communiated fracture of size 04cm x 03cm
involving left temporal bone and there was depressed fracture of
size 07cm x 04cm involving left parietal bone posterior part
with absent corresponding bone. There was a radiating linear
fracture 05cm in length extending from the depressed fracture
posterior over the occipital bone. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has submitted that save and except the confessional
statement, there is nothing against the petitioner. Learned
counsel for the petitioner has further submitted since only
skeleton was recovered, it cannot be said that the skeleton was
that of the deceased. Unless and until, it is established that the
body which was brought for postmortem was of the deceased.
The confessional statement and their correlation thereof has got
no meaning. Petitioners are having no criminal antecedent and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13994 of 2026(4) dt.18-04-2026
4/5
they are languishing in judicial custody since 21.10.2025.
5. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for
the informant have vehemently opposed the application for bail.
Learned counsel for the informant has submitted that from perusal
of para ‘93’ of the case diary, it will transpire that co-accused
Saroja Devi had talk with the deceased at 19.43 hours for four
minutes. It has also been submitted that during course of
investigation, one Urmila Devi has given her statement that on that
day at about 9-10 P.M., Saroja Devi has come to the house of
Urmila was in insane state of mind and when Urmila called about
this, Saroja disclosed that she is not feeling well. Her cloths were
also soiled. She was repeatedly said that she is not feeling well.
Learned counsel for the informant has further submitted that from
perusal of the postmortem report, it is clear that the manner of the
occurrence which has emerged from the confessional statement of
the co-accused persons corroborates the postmortem report. From
perusal of the postmortem report it also transpires that shaft of
right femur bone, right upper third molar and right upper second
incisor was preserved for DNA fingerprinting and any other
needful.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is
inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. The above named
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13994 of 2026(4) dt.18-04-2026
5/5
petitioners are directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail
bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) each with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad in connection with Ghoshi
(Okari) P.S. Case No. 541 of 2025 till the DNA report, however
after the DNA report, if it is found that the body is that of
Santosh Kumar (deceased), in that case, they will have to
surrender and renew their prayer for bail.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
lata/-
U T
Checking your session…