Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Dharamveer KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL REJECTED

Holding

Anticipatory bail was denied because the co‑accused’s confession, corroborated by the injury report, provided sufficient basis to reject the petition.

Summary

The petitioner, Dharamveer Kumar, was implicated in a robbery‑related case (Case No. 61 of 2025) where an informant was shot and Rs. 9,80,000 was stolen. The FIR did not name him, but the investigating agency identified him based on a confessional statement of a co‑accused, Ram Shankar, without any physical evidence recovered. The petitioner sought anticipatory bail, arguing that only suspicion and the co‑accused’s confession linked him to the crime. The State opposed, contending that the co‑accused’s confession was corroborated by the gunshot injury on the informant’s thigh, matching the injury report. The Court held that the corroborative nature of the injury report and the ongoing investigation justified rejecting the anticipatory bail application. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the only link to the accused is a co‑accused’s confessional statement and corroborative injury evidence
  • Whether the absence of material evidence against the petitioner precludes denial of anticipatory bail

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • confessional statement
  • co‑accused
  • suspicion
  • criminal procedure
  • Arms Act
  • robbery
  • injury corroboration

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19032 of 2026
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-61 Year-2025 Thana- BARH RAIL P.S. District- Patna
                 ======================================================
                 Dharamveer Kumar S/O Shatrudhan Mahto R/O Vill - Budhanichak, P.S -
                 Barh,Dist- Patna
                                                                      ... ... Petitioner/s
                                              Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                               ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Ashok Kumar Kashyap, Adv
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   31-03-2026                      Heard the parties.

                                   2. The accused/petitioner is not named in the F.I.R.

                   and apprehended his arrest in connection with GRP Barh P.S.

                   Case No. 61 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under

                   Sections 310(2), 311, 109, 118(2), 127(2), 61(2) and 3(5) of

                   the BNS & Section 27 of the Arms Act.

                                   3. As per FIR, some unknown miscreants while

                   committing robbery upon informant looted cash of Rs. 9,80,000/-

                   and also caused him firearm injury during the occurrence.

                                   4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

                   petitioner submitted that the name of petitioner transpired during

                   the course of investigation on the basis of confessional statement

                   of co-accused namely Ram Shankar, in furtherance of which no

                   incriminating material appears to be recovered till now,
               Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19032 of 2026(2) dt.31-03-2026
                                                           2/2




                         suggesting involvement of petitioner with the present crime in

                         question. It is pointed out that except suspicion nothing survives

                         against petitioner. It is also pointed out that petitioner found

                         involved in one more criminal case, where he is on bail.

                                         5. Learned APP, while opposing the prayer for

                         anticipatory     bail    submitted      that    during   the   investigation

                         apprehended co-accused persons specifically confessed about this

                         petitioner that he fired upon informant causing gun-shot injury on

                         his thigh, which appears corroborating with the injury report of

                         the informant as same was found to be caused by gun-shot on

                         thigh. It is also pointed out that the investigation is still open.

                                      6. Taking note of aforesaid as injury upon informant

                         prima-facie appears corroborating qua confessional statement of

                         apprehended co-accused coupled with fact investigation of this

                         case is still open, accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of

                         the petitioner stands rejected.


                                                                    (Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
S.Tripathi/-

U       T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.