Patna High Court
Dikshit Kumar @ Dikshit Kumar RoyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court held that bail could not be granted to the petitioner at this stage of the proceedings.
Summary
The petitioner, Dikshit Kumar, was arrested in connection with the death of his friend Sonu and charged under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023. The informant alleged that Sonu was found dead with injuries and that CCTV footage at the scene had been tampered with, suggesting possible involvement of the accused. The petitioner contended that he has a clean record, was falsely implicated, and that there was no motive or evidence linking him to the crime. The State and the informant opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offence and the alleged tampering of evidence. After hearing both sides, the court declined to grant bail, stating that the petitioner must remain in custody until charges are formally framed, though he may reapply thereafter.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail pending trial in a case involving alleged homicide and alleged tampering of CCTV evidence.
- Whether the allegations in the FIR and the nature of the offence justify the denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 — s. 103(1), 3(5)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- evidence tampering
- homicide
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17560 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-100 Year-2025 Thana- BELDOUR District- Khagaria
======================================================
Dikshit Kumar @ Dikshit Kumar Roy S/o Dilip Singh @ Dilip Kumar Singh
R/o Mohalla - ward no. 5, P.s.- Beldaur, Distt.- Khagaria
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mani Shankar Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Yogendra Kumar Singh, APP
For the informant : Mr. Aditya Singh, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 07-05-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the informant.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Beldaur P.S. Case No.100 of 2025, registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 103(1), 3(5) of the BNS, 2023.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is in custody
since 03.11.2025 and the informant alleges that his brother Sonu
along with petitioner and Arya on 03.04.2025 at 9.30 P.M. had
gone to the house of Dilip (father of petitioner) at Tilathi
crossing for sleeping, further on 04.04.2025 at 6.54 A.M.
another son of Dilip, namely, Deepak made a call on mobile of
his uncle informing that Sonu died, accordingly, informant
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17560 of 2026(2) dt.07-05-2026
2/3
along with others reached the place of occurrence and saw the
dead body of Sonu lying in a ditch with mark of injuries on jaw
and hand, further petitioner, Deepak, Dilip and Arya were
present at the place of occurrence and on verifying the CCTV
installed in the house, it appeared that the same was tampered
with, accordingly the police was informed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the
allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that
informant alleges that Sonu had gone to the house of the
petitioner along with friends for sleeping and it was Deepak,
brother of the petitioner, who informed the uncle of the
informant that Sonu has died. It is further submitted that had the
petitioner or his family members been involved in the
occurrence then efforts would have been made to conceal the
evidence by disposing of the dead body but then the same was
not done as neither petitioner nor his family members were
involved in the occurrence. It is also submitted that FIR does not
even remotely suggest any motive for the occurrence. It is also
submitted that petitioner and deceased were good friend, as such
there appears no reason that why petitioner along with others
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17560 of 2026(2) dt.07-05-2026
3/3
would have killed the deceased.
5. Learned A.P.P. and the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the informant opposes the prayer for bail of the
petitioner. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant
submits that what is not in dispute rather stands admitted is that
Sonu died and his dead body was lying in a ditch with mark of
injuries as recorded hereinabove. It is further submitted that
informant specifically alleges that the CCTV installed in the
premise was tampered with, which amply suggests that the
occurrence might have been committed by the accused persons
hence the CCTV was tampered.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the
Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.
7. The bail application of the petitioner is rejected.
8. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to
renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…