Patna High Court
Love Kumar @ JugeversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Bail was denied to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Love Kumar, applied for regular bail in a case registered under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act and Section 27 of the Arms Act, alleging that he was falsely implicated. He contended that his name was derived solely from a confessional statement made by co‑accused Santosh while in police custody, which he argued has no evidentiary value. The State argued that the informant, the deceased’s wife, had initially identified Santosh, whose subsequent confession led to the petitioner’s implication, and that the seriousness of the offences warranted denial of bail. After hearing both sides, the Court accepted the State’s view that the material evidence, though derived from a confession, was sufficient to justify continued detention. Consequently, the Court refused to grant bail to the petitioner. The bail petition was therefore dismissed.
Issues considered
- The petitioner’s right to bail in light of the seriousness of the offences under the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act and the Arms Act
- Whether a confessional statement made in police custody, lacking independent corroboration, can be the sole basis for denying bail
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 103(1), 3(5)
Subjects
- bail
- confessional statement
- evidentiary value
- Arms Act
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act
- false implication
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2196 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-493 Year-2024 Thana- SIMRI BAKHTIYARPUR District-
Saharsa
======================================================
Love Kumar @ Juge S/o- Bilash Sharma @ Vilash Sharma Resident of
Village- Bariyarpur, PS- Bakhtiarpur Balwahat District- Saharsa
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binod Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ramchandra Sahni, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 21-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the BNS
as well as Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is in custody
since 17.09.2025 and the informant alleges that on 28.10.2024
Kabindra informed that Dularchand (husband of the informant)
has been shot at Bhaura Chauk, accordingly, the informant
reached the place of occurrence where she was informed that
Dularchand has been taken to a hospital on which she reached
the hospital and saw the dead body of her husband. It is further
alleged that her husband was killed by seven named accused
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2196 of 2026(2) dt.21-04-2026
2/3
persons along with 4-5 unknown accused. It is next alleged that
accused persons had earlier threatened her husband that he will
be killed. It is also alleged that her husband disclosed the name
of one Santosh.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is further submitted that earlier Dularchand was
implicated in a case relating to murder of father of Santosh, as
such, the informant implicated Santosh in the instant case and
when Santosh was arrested based on his confession the name of
the petitioner transpired as Santoch disclosed that he along with
Ashish and petitioner did raiki of the deceased before
committing the occurrence. It is, thus, submitted that name of
the petitioner transpired based on the confessional statement of
Santosh in police custody which does not have any evidentiary
value in the eye of law.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes
the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner and submits that no
doubt, the name of the petitioner transpired in the confessional
statement of Santosh in police custody which does not have any
evidentiary value in the eye of law but then the informant, who
is wife of the deceased, alleges that deceased while dying
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2196 of 2026(2) dt.21-04-2026
3/3
disclosed the name of Santosh based on which Santosh was
arrested. It is further submitted that it does not appear probable
that informant, being the wife of the deceased, would have
implicated Santosh in the case had her husband not disclosed. It
is next submitted that thereafter Santosh was arrested and the
petitioner based on his confessional statement came to be
implicated on which learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that though the order impugned records that
Santosh along with petitioner and Ashish did raiki of the
deceased before committing the occurrence but then has not
disclosed that it was only petitioner who shot him.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
the Court is in agreement with the submissions made by the
learned A.P.P., as such, is not inclined to release the petitioner
on bail in connection with Bakhtiyarpur P.S. Case No. 493 of
2024 pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Saharsa/Successor Court.
7. Hence, the prayer for bail is rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…