Patna High Court

Chandan KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 15 April 2026
Disposal: REJECTED
Bench: RAJESH KUMAR VERMA

Holding

Bail was denied because the accused’s confession and the serious nature of the murder charges outweighed any claim of a fabricated FIR.

Summary

The petitioner, Chandan Kumar, was arrested on 14 October 2025 in connection with a murder case (S. Tr. No. 321 of 2026) under Sections 103(1), 238 and 61(2) of the B.N.S., 2023. He applied for bail, claiming a clean record and that the FIR was fabricated, noting a two‑day delay in filing the FIR. The prosecution opposed bail, asserting that the petitioner had confessed to the crime and that multiple witnesses corroborated the prosecution’s version, including details of the body being burnt. The court examined the confession, the seriousness of the offences, and the credibility of the prosecution’s evidence. Considering these factors, the judge declined to grant bail. The petition for bail was therefore refused.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a murder case where the accused has allegedly confessed and there is corroborative witness testimony
Whether the alleged delay in filing the FIR and claim of fabrication affect the bail decision

Legislation cited

B.N.S., 2023 — s. 103(1), 238, 61(2)

Subjects

bail
murder
confession
fabricated FIR
criminal procedure
serious offence

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24454 of 2026
                   Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1020 Year-2025 Thana- MOTIHARI TOWN District- East
                                                       Champaran
                 ======================================================
                 Chandan Kumar S/o Guddu Sah Resident of village - Nonfarwa, P.S - Patahi,
                 District- East Champaran

                                                                                 ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr. Harendra Prasad
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   15-04-2026                  Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the

                   petitioner and Mr. Harendra Prasad, learned APP for the State.

                                2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since

                   14.10.2025 in connection with S. Tr. No. 321 of 2026, arising

                   out of Motihari Town P.S. Case No. 1020 of 2025 for the

                   offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 238, 61(2) of the

                   B.N.S., 2023.

                                3. The petitioner and other co-accused person,

                   namely, Subhash Sah are alleged to have committed murder of

                   the husband of the informant.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner has clean antecedent and the he has falsely been

                   implicated in the present case. The allegation as alleged in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24454 of 2026(2) dt.15-04-2026
                                            2/3




          FIR is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed

          any offence as alleged in the FIR. From bare perusal of the FIR,

          it appears that the date of occurnec as alleged in the FIR is

          10.10.2025 but the present FIR was instituted on 12.10.2025

          after delay of two days without giving any explanation for such

          delay. The petitioner is in custody since 10.04.2023.

                       5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other

          hand, vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner

          and submits that the petitioner has confessed his guilt and stated

          that the petitioner along with others have committed the crime

          in question and the petitioner has also accepted that they had

          thrown the dead body of the deceased at an abandoned place

          and set it on fire. He further submits that at the instance of the

          petitioner dead body of the deceased was recovered in burnt

          condition and in this regard an inquest report was prepared

          which was mentioned at para- 23 of the case diary. Apart from

          aforesaid, witnesses, namely, Ajay Sah, Niranjan Kumar,

          Kamlesh Sah, Vikash Kumar and Aman Kumar have fully

          supported the case of prosecution which was recorded in

          paragraph nos. 20, 21, 22, 32 and 33 of the case diary.

                       6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances

          of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24454 of 2026(2) dt.15-04-2026
                                                        3/3




                      connection with S. Tr. No. 321 of 2026, arising out of Motihari

                      Town P.S. Case No. 1020 of 2025, pending in the Court of

                      learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-II, East

                      Champaran at Motihari or Successor Court.

                                   7. Prayer is refused.


                                                     (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)

Ranjeet/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…