Patna High Court
Pramod KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PRAVEEN KUMAR
Holding
The court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail as there is no substantive material linking him to the offence and the confession lacks evidentiary value.
Summary
Petitioner Pramod Kumar applied for regular bail in a case registered under Sections 103(1), 61(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S. The FIR relates to the murder of the informant’s son, Md. Gulfan Ansari, and the petitioner is not named in the FIR. The prosecution’s case against the petitioner rests only on his telephone call records with co‑accused Muskan and a confessional statement made while in police custody, which the petitioner contends has no evidentiary value. The State and the informant opposed bail, alleging suspicious transactions between the petitioner and another accused, Uttam Kumar. The court examined the lack of any direct incriminating material, the petitioner’s clean antecedent, and the prolonged pre‑trial custody since 19‑10‑2025, and concluded that the suspicion alone does not justify denial of bail. Accordingly, the court ordered the petitioner’s release on bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, and allowed the application.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail despite not being named in the FIR and only being linked by call records and a custodial confession.
- Whether the custodial confession and alleged transactions constitute sufficient material to deny bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 103(1), 3(5), 61(2)
Subjects
- regular bail
- bail bond
- suspicion
- confessional statement
- FIR
- pre‑trial detention
- Bihar Criminal Procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2919 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-269 Year-2025 Thana- PARASBIGHA District- Jehanabad
======================================================
Pramod Kumar Son of Jaigovind Paswan Resident of Village - Kashichak,
P.S. - Shakurabad, District Jehanabad.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anuj Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Ansul Aryan, Advocate
Ms. Easlute Raj, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dr. Ajeet Kumar, APP
For the Informant/s : Mr. Piyush Kumar Pandey, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 02-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has preferred this application for
grant of regular bail in connection with Parasbigha P.S. Case
No. 269 of 2025 dated 13.10.2025 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 103(1), 61(2) and 3(5) of B.N.S.
3. As per the prosecution case, the son of the
informant, namely, Md. Gulfan Ansari was working as a partner
in City Nurshing Home in association with co-accused persons,
namely, Md. Athar Hussain and Muskan Mam. It is further
alleged that the informant’s son used to live in the said nurshing
home and allegedly on 13.10.2025, the informant got
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2919 of 2026(3) dt.02-04-2026
2/3
information on a phone that the dead body of his son, namely,
Md. Gulfan Ansari was lying near the road of Sikariya More,
thereafter the informant along with his family members went at
that place and saw the dead body of his son smeared in blood
and lying near the road with a slitting injury on his neck. It is
further alleged that the informant’s son had love affair with co-
accused Muskan Mam due to which the informant had full
belief that the accused persons named in the FIR and other
unknown persons by hatching a conspiracy had committed
murder of the informant’s son.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that petitioner is not named in the FIR and materials against the
petitioner are his call details with co-accused Muskan and the
confessional statement of the petitioner while in police custody
which has got no evidentiary value in the eye of law. Moreover,
nothing incriminating was discovered/disclosed pursuant to the
said confession. It has further been submitted that apart from
suspicion there is no material against the petitioner. Moreover,
there is no other chain of circumstances. It has been further
submitted that petitioner is in custody since 19.10.2025 having
no criminal antecedent.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2919 of 2026(3) dt.02-04-2026
3/3
the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of
the petitioner. Learned counsel for the informant has submitted
that there are transactions details between this petitioner and co-
accused Uttam Kumar, who is also an accused in this case and
there is serious suspicion against the petitioner.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case
as well as the period of custody, the petitioner above-named is
directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of learned Court concerned,
Jehanabad in connection with Parasbigha P.S. Case No. 269 of
2025.
7. The application stands allowed.
(Praveen Kumar, J)
shivam/-
U T
Checking your session…