Patna High Court
Tinku Koda @ Tinku Kumar KodaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The Court refused to grant bail, allowing the petitioner to renew his application after six months if the trial is not concluded.
Summary
The petitioner, Tinku Koda, was charged under several sections of the B.N.S. for the alleged murder of Santosh Kumar, the son of an informant who disappeared after a love marriage. The prosecution alleges that Koda concealed and disposed of the body, relying on a confessional statement by the petitioner that led to the recovery of the corpse. The petitioner contends that the only incriminating material is his own confession, which he argues is inadmissible, and points out that only one of twelve charge‑sheet witnesses has been examined. The State opposes bail, asserting that the disclosure resulting in body recovery is admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Court, after considering the circumstances, declined to grant regular bail, directing that the petitioner may renew his bail application after six months if the trial remains pending, and ordered the trial court to expedite the proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail at this stage of the investigation and trial
- Whether the confessional statement and the consequent recovery of the dead body are admissible evidence under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 115(2), 126(2), 137(2), 140(1), 3(5), 351(2), 352
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 27
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- confessional statement
- Indian Evidence Act
- Section 27
- trial delay
- regular bail
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24605 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2 Year-2025 Thana- LADAIYATAR District- Munger
======================================================
Tinku Koda @ Tinku Kumar Koda S/O Suren Koda R/O Village- Khopapar,
P.S- Laraiyatand, Distt.- Munger.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shashi Saurabh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Binod Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 01-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 126(2),
115(2), 137(2), 140(1), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that earlier the bail petition of this petitioner was rejected with
an observation that “he may renew his prayer for bail after six
months if the trial is not concluded”.
4. A report from the learned trial court was called and
from perusal of the report it transpires that out of 12 charge-
sheet witnesses only one witness has been examined.
5. Now coming to the merit of this case, the case of
the prosecution in short is that the son of the informant namely,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24605 of 2026(3) dt.01-07-2026
2/3
Santosh Kumar has solemnized love marriage with Rekha
Kumari against the will of the family. It is further alleged that
the son of the informant did not return. When he was being
searched, the informant went to the house of Tinku Koda (the
petitioner), then the two wives of the petitioner told that Santosh
Kumar was taken towards jungle after being assaulted. The
informant believes that the petitioner along with family
members has concealed the body of Santosh Kumar after killing
him.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that the only material against the petitioner is that he has given
his confessional statement which is there in the Paragraph ‘37’
of the case diary and on his disclosure the dead body was
recovered as per the claim of police. The petitioner is a man of
clean antecedent and is in judicial custody since 14.01.2025.
7. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed
the bail and has submitted that the dead body has been
recovered on his disclosure though confessional statement
before police is not admissible but disclosure leading to
recovery is admissible and relevant in view of Section 27 of the
Indian Evidence Act.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24605 of 2026(3) dt.01-07-2026
3/3
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not
inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage, however, he
may renew his prayer for bail after six months, if the trial is not
concluded.
9. Learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial,
so as to conclude the same within the said period.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
durgesh/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.