Patna High Court
Suraj Maharaj @ Suraj Kumar RayversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- RITESH KUMAR
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied as the petitioner was implicated by the co‑accused’s confessional statement.
Summary
Suraj Maharaj, a student and private employee, feared arrest in a murder case (Ekma P.S. Case No. 277 of 2025) where he was alleged to have violated Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution’s case is based on a confessional statement by co‑accused Upendra Kumar Mahto, who named the petitioner as an accomplice, although the petitioner’s name does not appear in the FIR. The petitioner argued that the statement was unreliable, that the victim was an antisocial element with many enemies, and that he had been acquitted in two earlier cases. The State opposed anticipatory bail, emphasizing the co‑accused’s confession. After reviewing the records, the Court held that the petitioner’s naming in the confessional statement sufficed to deny anticipatory bail and rejected the bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the accused is named only in a co‑accused’s confessional statement and not in the FIR
- Whether prior acquittals in other cases affect the grant of anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
- Arms Act, 1959 — s. 27
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 103(1), 3(5)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- confessional statement
- co‑accused
- FIR
- Arms Act
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act
- criminal procedure
- bail jurisprudence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16743 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-277 Year-2025 Thana- EKMA District- Saran
======================================================
Suraj Maharaj @ Suraj Kumar Ray S/o- Rakesh Kumar Ray @ Jayesh
Maharaj R/v- Ekma Bhatt Toli (Bhantoli) Ps- Ekma Dist- Saran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dewendra Narayan Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 29-04-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in
connection with Ekma P.S. Case No. 277 of 2025, for allegedly
having committed offence under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the
BNS and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution story, which has been
lodged on the basis of the farbeyan of the informant to the effect
that on 20.07.2025 at about 07:30 P.M., the son of the informant
was going to Ekma market on his motorcycle, however at a
distance of around 100 meters from the house, he was killed by
fire-arms by unknown criminals. The informant received
information through mobile phone of his father, after which, he
came to the place of the occurrence and saw his son lying
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16743 of 2026(3) dt.29-04-2026
2/3
unconscious. Thereafter, he was taken to Sadar Hospital,
Chapra, where he was declared dead.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the name of the petitioner transpired in this case on the
basis of the confessional statement of the co-accused Upendra
Kumar Mahto and except the confessional statement of the co-
accused, nothing has come during course of investigation
against the petitioner. The petitioner being a student, engaged in
preparation of different competitive examinations and also
qualified certain competitive examination. He is presently
engaged in a private job. He further submits that the son of the
informant was an antisocial element and he had enmity with
several persons in the locality, therefore there is a chance that he
would have been killed by some enemies and the name of the
petitioner has been taken by the co-accused Upendra Kumar
Mahto at the behest of some villagers, who are on inimical
terms with the petitioner.
5. The learned APP for the State vehemently
opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner by referring to
paragraph no.64 of the case diary and submits that the co-
accused Upendra Kumar Mahto in his confessional statement
has taken the name of the petitioner to be the participant in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16743 of 2026(3) dt.29-04-2026
3/3
crime.
6. Having heard the rival submissions and after
going through the records, it appears that although the petitioner
has not been named in the first information report, however his
named transpired during course of investigation and the co-
accused Upendra Kumar Mahto has named him as his
accomplish in the crime. The petitioner is also an accused in two
other cases, however in the said cases, he has been acquitted.
Since, the petitioner has been named as an accomplish of co-
accused Upendra Kumar Mahto, I am not inclined to grant the
privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the
prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.
(Ritesh Kumar, J)
AjayMishra/-
U T
Checking your session…