Patna High Court
Dhanu Kumar @ Dhannu KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The court held that bail could not be granted as the petitioner is implicated in a serious murder and arms offence and the trial has already progressed.
Summary
Dhanu Kumar was charged under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act for the murder of businessman Rajesh Prasad, based largely on the confessional statement of co‑accused Govinda. The petitioner sought regular bail for the second time, claiming innocence and alleging false implication. The prosecution opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offence and the petitioner’s alleged role in the conspiracy. The court noted that the trial had already progressed with most witnesses examined and that the seriousness of the charges warranted denial of bail. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed and the trial was directed to proceed expeditiously.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite being charged with murder and illegal possession of arms.
- Whether the progress of the trial and examination of witnesses justify denial of bail.
- Whether a confessional statement of a co‑accused suffices to deny bail to the petitioner.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 34
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- conspiracy
- IPC
- Arms Act
- trial progress
- confessional statement
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18041 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-417 Year-2023 Thana- EKMA District- Saran
======================================================
Dhanu Kumar @ Dhannu Kumar S/o Gautam Patel R/o Vill.- Tarbaniya, P.S. -
Ekma, Dist.- Saran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Pronoti Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 29-04-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned APP for the State.
2. This is the 2nd attempt of the petitioner seeking bail
in connection with Ekma P.S. Case No. 417 of 2023 registered
for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code
and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was
rejected on 31.07.2024 in Cr. Misc. No. 29695 of 2024 which
reads as follows:-
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner
and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection
with Ekma P.S. Case No. 417 of 2023, dated 08.10.2023,
registered for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the
Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, one
businessman Rajesh Prasad was shot on way to home
and during treatment he died. During investigation, the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18041 of 2026(2) dt.29-04-2026
2/3
name of the petitioner has come in the confessional
statement of the co-accused Govinda @ Munna. He has
said that he along with the petitioner and other co-
accused persons have killed the deceased. The petitioner
was assigned with the work to keep watch on the police.
The petitioner is involved in the conspiracy to kill the
deceased andhe is in jail since 16.11.2023.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner is innocent and he has falsely
been implicated in this case. The petitioner has been
made accused in this case on the basis of confessional
statement of co-accused Govinda @ Munna. The
petitioner has one criminal antecedent and he is in jail
since 16.11.2023.
5. Learned APP for the State vehemently
opposed the prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail and
submits that the petitioner was involved in the killing of
the deceased.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and the
serious allegation against the petitioner, this Court is not
inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the application of the
petitioner for grant of regular bail is dismissed.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that out of six witnesses, four witnesses have already
been examined. It is further submitted that the last witness was
examined on 12.06.2025, and thereafter, no further witness has
been examined.
5. In view of the fact that the trial has already
progressed, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the
petitioner. Accordingly, the application for regular bail stands
rejected.
6. The Superintendent of Police, Saran, is directed to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18041 of 2026(2) dt.29-04-2026
3/3
ensure the attendance of the remaining witnesses in the trial so
that the trial is concluded at the earliest.
7. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
Superintendent of Police, Saran, through FAX or e-mail for
immediate compliance.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Shishir/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.