Patna High Court
Amlesh Kumar @ Karan KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The court held that, in the absence of any new ground and given the existence of a confessional statement and material evidence, regular bail could not be granted.
Summary
Amlesh Kumar, the petitioner, is in custody for alleged murder and related offences under Sections 363, 365, 302, 201, 120(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. He contends that the allegations are false, that he was abroad at the time, and that his confessional statement was obtained under duress. The State opposes bail, citing the confessional statement, the recovery of the dead body, and material evidence, noting that three witnesses have already been examined. The court examined the submissions and found no new grounds to merit bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the charges and the progress of the trial. Consequently, the bail application was rejected and the petition dismissed, with a direction that the trial be concluded expeditiously.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in view of the confessional statement and material evidence against him
- Whether any new ground exists to justify granting bail at this stage of the trial
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120(B), 201, 302, 34, 363, 365
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- Indian Penal Code
- confessional statement
- criminal trial
- serious offences
- custody
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.213 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-75 Year-2024 Thana- MASAUDHI District- Patna
======================================================
Amlesh Kumar @ Karan Kumar, Son of Birju Yadav, Resident of Village-
Lakhapur, P.S.- Parsbigha, District- Jehanabad.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Singh, Adv.
Ms. Meena Kumari, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Meena Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 18-03-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This is second attempt on behalf of the petitioner
for grant of bail. Earlier his application for bail was rejected by
this Court vide order dated 12.05.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No.
86547 of 2024.
3. The petitioner, who is in custody, seeks bail in
connection with Sessions Trial No. 721 of 2024 arising out of
Masaurhi P.S. Case No. 75 of 2024 registered for the offence(s)
punishable under Section(s) 363 and 365 of the Indian Penal
Code and later on, Section(s) 302, 201, 120(B) and 34 of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.213 of 2026(3) dt.18-03-2026
2/3
I.P.C. were also added.
4. The allegation against the petitioner is that he
had called the informant’s son from the house and had taken
him away at the instance of paying Rs. 8,000/-, which was due
to him and, thereafter, committed the murder of the son of the
informant.
5. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner
that though he has been named in the F.I.R., but the story
propounded against him that he had called the informant’s son is
false and concocted. It has further been submitted that no
occurrence, as alleged, had ever taken place as the petitioner
used to work at Hyderabad in connection with his livelihood and
there is no dispute between the petitioner and the deceased as
alleged by the prosecution. It has next been submitted that the
petitioner had willfully surrendered before the police when he
came to know about his impleadment in the present case and he
was beaten by the police and was forced to sign on a blank sheet
of paper on which his confessional statement is stated to have
been recorded. It has also been submitted that the trial has
already begun and three witnesses have already been examined.
It has lastly been submitted that the petitioner carries no
criminal antecedent and he is in custody since 05.02.2024.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.213 of 2026(3) dt.18-03-2026
3/3
6. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State
has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted
that on the confessional statement of the petitioner, the dead-
body of the deceased was recovered. It has been submitted that
the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and there is ample material
against him collected during the course of investigation,
showing his involvement in the present case and moreover from
the report received from the Trial Court, three witnesses have
been examined.
7. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances
of the case and finding no new grounds, this Court is not
inclined to grant the petitioner the privilege of regular bail.
8. The prayer for bail is, accordingly, rejected.
9. The application stands dismissed.
10. It is, however, observed that the Trial Court
shall conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within a year.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
Praveen-II/-
U T
Checking your session…