Patna High Court

Sukesh Yadav @ Sukesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 15 April 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY

Holding

The court granted bail to the petitioner, finding that the evidence against him was merely suspicion and not sufficient to justify continued detention.

Summary

The petitioner, Sukesh Yadav, was charged under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the B.N.S. for allegedly killing the husband of an informant. He contended that he is the son of the deceased victim, that there were no eyewitnesses, and that the only incriminating material was a confessional statement of co‑accused Saurav Kumar and Sakaldev Kumar, which alleged he had arranged Rs. 60,000 for the murder. The State opposed bail, relying on the confessional statement, while the petitioner’s counsel argued that the FIR and lack of direct evidence rendered the case merely suspicious. The court examined the evidence, noted that the co‑accused had already been granted bail, and found no substantive proof linking the petitioner to the crime beyond suspicion. Consequently, the court ordered that the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties, pending further trial.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the B.N.S. in view of the confessional statement of co‑accused and the absence of direct evidence.
Whether the confessional statement of a co‑accused can be used to justify denial of bail to the petitioner.

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 103(1), 3(5)

Subjects

bail
murder
confessional statement
suspicion
criminal procedure
B.N.S.
Sections 103(1)
Section 3(5)

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15114 of 2026
                  Arising Out of PS. Case No.-75 Year-2025 Thana- KUMAR KHAND District- Madhepura
                 ======================================================
                 Sukesh Yadav @ Sukesh Kumar, S/o Late Budhu Yadav, R/o Village-
                 Ranipatti, Ward No.14, P.S- Belari, Dist- Madhepura.

                                                                                ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr.Nafisu Zzoha, Advocate
                                                 Mr. Nasar Iqbal, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr.Aditya Narayan Singh.1, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   15-04-2026                   Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

                   counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.

                                 2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case

                   registered for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1) and

                   3(5) of the B.N.S.

                                 3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the

                   petitioner along with others has killed the husband of the

                   informant.

                                 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

                   petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has

                   committed no offence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has

                   submitted that from perusal of the F.I.R. itself it is clear that

                   petitioner is the son of the deceased. It has further been
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15114 of 2026(3) dt.15-04-2026
                                            2/3




          submitted that there is no eye witness of the occurrence. During

          course of investigation, blood stains were found from two co-

          accused persons Saurav Kumar and Sakaldev Kumar. Sakaldev

          and Saurav have been granted bail by learned Co-ordinate

          Bench of this Court vide Cr. Misc. No. 69019 of 2025 and

          67487 of 2025 respectively. Learned counsel for the petitioner

          has submitted that only on the basis of suspicion, the name of

          this petitioner has surfaced in this case. Save and except the

          confessional statement, there is nothing against the petitioner.

          He is having no criminal antecedent and he is languishing in

          judicial custody since 15.03.2025.

                       5. Learned APP appearing for the State and learned

          counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the

          application for bail. Learned counsel for the informant has

          submitted that in this case, from confessional statement of the

          co-accused, it is clear that the petitioner has arranged Rs.

          60,000/- for killing of his father.

                       6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

          considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is

          inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named

          petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail

          bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15114 of 2026(3) dt.15-04-2026
                                                         3/3




                       of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned District

                       and Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Madhepura in connection

                       with Kumarkhand P.S. Case No. 75 of 2025.


                                                     (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)

lata/-
U        T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…